l( c-.^'Aoo! IN THE aIGH COURT QF CHHAT'EtSGARH AT BIIASPUR <C .G. ) WRIT PETITION l )^£c?~2006 PETITIONER < HariRam- Nishad S/o Shri ^^> ^?^' ..••-"^\r\/..v-- ,^>^y" Nandlal Nisad, aged about 31 years, Panchyat Karmi, Gram Panchyat Leemgaon, Resident of Village-Leemgaon, Post- Khokhasipali, Block & Tahsil- Sarangarh District-Raigarh (C.G.) '^- RESPONDENTS ^"^ ^ v-A ^ ^ ^^' VERSUS , 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Panchyat & Rural Developnient Department D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The Additional .Collector Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ^3-. The Deputy Director Panchyat & Social Welfare Raigarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The , Sub-divisional Officer, Sarangarh, Dist. Rairarh (C.G.) Smt. Noni Bai W/o Shri MaheshRam Teli, Sarapanch of Gram Panchyat Leemgaon, Resident of Leemgaon thasil- Sarangarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION ONDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUSNCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CEERTIORftRI, IffiNDAMUS, PROHIBXTION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR OBDERES: XI-HC-78 XI-HC-78 Sn^T^iTf^W <NT3n^rgwi?> ______M *imwi gi*n^» S^^IPIRPT, ®Tn«'is,Riciiuy ^qj^.-..;... .~:v.-...f... .-.. ^- ^QO 3TI^?T14d* (tclt^Gt<t'iT) ??<nwgfeT3:n^r 21-7.2006:- Shri R.S. Patel, counsel foi +l''ltcl41-l WRff ff fSCS <Rl't^K ^sri^tTSII^T • the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Gt>vemment Advocate for the State/ respondents No.1 to 4, on advan4e copy. Heard both the counsel. By the instent petition, tl^e petitioner has questioned the order dated 1 July 2006 passed by tl-|e Additional Collector, Raigarh whereby the Additional Coltector aflowed (he appeat filed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Leemgaon and quast Sub Divisional Officer, The case of the petitioner ffte post of Panchayat Karmi or ed fte order dated 21-2-2006 passed by is that the petitfoner was appointed on 11-10-95 and vide order dated 19-12- fte petitioner was given ^idditionat charge. Thereafter, all of a sudden, on 17-4-2005, responde|it No.5 has removed the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi with^ut following Uie procedure as envisaged in the Chhattisgarh Panchayat pervice (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. On 23-4-2005, responden|t No.3 passed an order ttiat respondent No.6 is appointed as Panchaya| removal order dated 17-4-20051 Sachiv. The petitioner chatlenged his as well as the order dated 23-4-20(fi before the S.D.0. and SDO allo^ed the applteation of the petitioner and quashed the removal order. It is admitted position tha^ the serviees of Panchayat Karmi are governed under the Rules, 1999 |and major penalties as mentioned in the Rules 5 (b) can be imposed only| after following tiie procedure of enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of |he Rules, ^99S. In the present case, admittedly, before imposing the ^enalty of removal of the petitioner, no such prpcedure has been adoptei? bythe Gram Panchayat. P.T.O. »1. y^s, • ss^• ^s^ BE N ^s ^? *3"S XI-HC-78 3 r'<<i'4io<<, y^y'is, IsK-iwy *IM<11 ^WW ^ 200 3n^?r q?ra? (^fgsf^r) sn^TwteR; (HTsn^Tgm?; Barve ?<S<ITW?rf^tT3n^CT .z.- Perusal of the impugned ^rder dated 17-4-2005 wrtiereby the petitioner was removed from the po^t of Panchayat Karmi shows ttiat vide resoluton No.1 dated 8-4-2005 the Gram Panchayat, Leemgaon is wj allowed to exist, then same wouldl this petition is being disposed of ^ issuance of notice to respondent Nj +wt<?l41-1 WRTf^'tei^l'<Rl'(<K ^> 3(^IT STI^T petitioner was removed fran the post of Panchayat Karmi. Since the procedure as envisjaged in Rule 7 ofthe Rutes, 1^9 has not been adopted, therefore, the 4'rder Annexure-P/3 of the Sarpanch, ^hout jurisdiction and if this order is lamount to failure ofjustice, as such, (t the admission stage ttsetf because [).5 will amount to further delay of the proceeding. However, if respond^nt No.5 stitl fsels aggrieved by Uiis order, thenshe will be at tiberty to ple an apptteation for recalling of this order. In the resutt, the writ petitior^ the Additionat Collector dated 1] Panchayat, Leemgaon dated t7-4f.Q05 are quashed. tt is made clear that the competent authority shall t^e at liberty to initiate enquiry against the petittoner under the Rutes, 1^®and thereafter to take appropriate decision, in accordance wfth law. In view ofthis order, M.(W.)1^ Parties are entiUed for certifie|d copy ofthis order. is altowed and the orders passed by Juty 2006 and Sarpanch, Gram [ hto.2800/2006 stands disposed of. ly Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge w^ P.T.O. ^ ^"