EN THE HIGHV COURT OF JUDICAT’URE AT BILASPUR (c.1‘.) WRIT PETITION N0. QQég OF 2003 BETWEEN 3m. Rahvati vishVixarma (widow) D/o Shri Kripali vishwakarma’, /aged about 35 years, Occupation service, resident of Village Tahsil Bharatpur, District wrea (CG). PETE ’I‘I WER AND The State of dahattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of Samaj Kalyan, Mahila Evam Baal Vikas, Mantralay, D.Kas.Building, Raipur (cc). Pariyojna A&1ikari, Ekikrit Baal Vikas Pariyojna,Bharatpur, District Korea (CG) - Thé dlief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchaya-t maratpur District Karea (0G). 4. 211a Mahiia Evam Baal Vikas Adhikari, Baikuntpur, District Korea (CG). RE SPONDEN‘I‘S / ‘ , RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTmN 9F INDIA / ’\ ,. _ x“ W o (o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2668 OF 2003 PETITIONER Smt. Rahvati Vishwkarma (Widow) Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Anicle 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Ms Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 25m day of March, 201 0) Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly selected and appointed on the post of Anganbadi Worker on 30-10-1983. The petitioner has worked efficiently and successfully. On account of her ill health, the petitioner could not attend the duties from 2-1-2002 to 4-7-2002. Thereafter, by order dated 9-4—2002 (Annexure — P/1) the petitioner was removed from service without assigning any reason and without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner made frantic efforts before the various authorities, but they have not responded to the same properly. Thus, the order of removal is unconstitutional, illegal and the same deserves to be quashed. uLL. 2. 0n the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. 3. This Court in Smt. Kaieshwari v. State of chhaisgarh and Others‘ and other connected matters, held that the Ananbadi Workers are admittedly employees of the Panchayats, as their appointments are made by the Janpad Panchayats on proposal made by the concerned Gram Panchayats. Rule 7 of C.. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short “the Rule”) provides for detailed procedure for imposing major penalties i.e. removal from ervice. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, removal from service comes within the purview of major penalty. 5. that as it may, the petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi Worker. lt is not the case of the responden that the procedure as prescribe in Rule 7 of the Ruleswas followed before the impugned order was passed. Further, the State has also not specified asto whether any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitoner or not before passing t impugned order. A Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 25—7-2006 passed in W.P. No. 1656 of 2004, and this Court, in its order (dated 15-11-2006, passed in‘W.P. No. 1850 of 2001, have a < twp (S) No.796 or 2007 (decided on 9-2-2007) tt g G s s Be ts d i he held that Rule 7 of the Rules have to be followed in the case of termination of a Panchayat employee. This Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. & Others1, Beegan Ram Vs. State of C.G. & Othersz, and Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State of C.G. & Others3, held that the non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justice tantamount to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, but, the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of lndia also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting the civil consequences, cannot be passed without holding the enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. It is thus clear that the respondents have not followed the statutory provisions of .law before imposing the major penalty of removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. For the reasons and the discussion made hereinabove, and the dicta laid down by the Court in various cases (supra), the order dated 9-4-2002 (Annexure P/1), is bad and is quashed. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with consequential Amit 11. benefits. There shall be no order asto costs. Sdl— .R Agmhom samh K t Judge