HI6H C?OURT OP CatIUEtTOW^ffil: MfeAM*X» Wrtt Petttloa Mo. 5811 of 2006 Petitloner Versus Respoadents. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Abdidafa Siddiyie, S/o. Rahiaatulrih Siddique, aged about 49 years, Panchayat Kanni, Graia Panchayat Kawai, Janpad Panchayat B^icha, District Jashpur (CG). State of Chhattusgarh, Thaough flie Secretary, Paafihag^at and Rural Developxaent Dcpartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Sub, Division Officer, Revcnue, Bagicha, District Jashpur )CO). Janpad Paachayat, Bapcha, fhioughChief Exccutive OfBcer, DlstrictJasl^ur (CG). Gram Paachecyat Kawai, through fhe Sccretaxy, Block Bagicha, Distt Jashpur Orain Sabhathrough the Secretaiy, Gram. Panchayat Kamai, Block B^icha, District Jashpur (CG). Mahadcv -Piasad, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Khakhra, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur (CC^. (Wnt Pctition under Articte 226/227 of fhe Constitution <rfIndi^ (8B: Hea'bto Shri Batlsh K. JI«aUi®t»i 3.) Shri Rakesh Paadey, ^lvocate for the pettttoner. Shd Paakaj Shriv^tava, Panel Lawyer fcw fhc respondents No. 1 & 2/State. Shri A.N. Bhakta, counsel for fhe Tespondent No.3. ORDBR (Paased on thls 2au> Bay of Ntouttd*, a009» 1.. Wiffa conscnt of fhe parties, fhc aaatter is heard finafly. 2. None appears for fhc respondcats No.4, 5 aad 6, despite service ofnotice. Tfae respondcnts No.4, 5 aad 6 have not liiir-Uil^U ^aL '^ choseu to appear ia fhe inatter nor they have fited aay rcturu to the petition. Thus, ffae aUcgatiDns anade a»aot trawerscd. The present petltion, fited under Article 226/227 of the Constitutton of India unpugns the oxder tteted 13.10.2005 (Aaaexure P/7), passed by fhc respondent No.4, as bcu% xmconstitutional on thc ground that fhe petitioaer was not affordcd any ogportemBy of hearing and thc order of terminatfoa was passed iu coatraveatfoa of thc pHWisions of Rule 7 offhe CUiatttegarh Panchayat Semce (Dascipllue aad Appcal) Rules, 1999 (for short the Rutes, 1999'). Leamcd couasel appearmg for thc petittoner subaaits fhat the pctitloner was appoiated as Paachayat Kanai of Gram Panchayat, Kassvai, Dist. jEKhpur (Aunexure P/2). la fhe meeting of Gram Sabha, held on 22-9-2005 (Annesaue P/l), without assigaiag smy reason and wifhout girar^ any show causc notice or an opportunily ofhesB-u^ to the petitioaer, thc resolution was ps^sed to remove fhe petitioaer fisoia Ifae post of Paachayat Kanni. By the impugned oTder drted 13.10.2005 (Anaexure P/7), passed by the respondeat Nto.4, ia compliaace of thc resoluttoa of fhe Gram Sabfaa dated 22-9- 2005, thc petitioner has been removed finia the post of Panchayat Karmi. Lcamed couasel appearmg for fhe petituxacr subaiits fhat Rulc 7 of fhe Rules, 1999 provides for proccdure bcfote teneninatiag semce ofa inember ofPaachayat. In fhe iastaat case, ftw saad provisions were not foHowed, no defintte cfaar^s wcBe fiaiacd aud the petitioner -was not sewed with flie artictes of charges before holdiag an enquiry, teadit^ to teixniaation ef the pettttoner fix>m his semces aad m fact netther ttie sliow cause .iii.ti.l u.L.j, |P^pll»B!W*)".4[- ' -ar- notice was issiled nor the eaqafay was hdd. It was stated fhat the termmation was p^sed on the basis of fhe resolutioa of the Gram Sabha, held on 22-9-2005. The same could not have been passed wifhout foUoiWing fhe piovisicMK oflan?, piescribed ia Rule 7 of fhe Rutes 1999. In support of his sutomissi<ais leamed counsel cited adecmion of ttus Court in the matter of Dhaluram Kosarla Vs. State of C.G. & otteera1, wtrich was reUed on in At^jordas V».State ot CUiattlagarh a* othera2 . Learaed couascl appearing for fhc respondcnts No. 1 axid 2/State foiity adauts fhat ttie provisions ofRide 7 ofthe Rules, 1999 weie not coniiriied wifh bcfore passii^ of the iinpugaed oider. Howevcr, he submite that fhete m availabffity of altemative reiaedy and as such this petition saay be disiiiisscd on the grouad ofavaUabiUty of fhe alteraatiye remedy. Aftcr haviag hcard learned counsd appeaaaag for fhc parties aad haviag perused the pteadn^s and recotds append^ fhereto, it is evident fhat fhc iinpi^gaed terminatiaa otder was passed witfaout foUowiag thc proper proceduro of tew, as prescribed under Rute 7 of the Rdes, 1999. Tte pxoccdure fer holding aa eaquiry is prescribed imder Riite 7 of tiie Rules, 1999 for imposition of aiajor penalty tfaat has sot bcai followed. Hence, fhe teimiaatfon is bad aud vitiated on fhe groiind of non-com.pliancc of fbc statutoiy provisifms and denial of (he priuciples of natural ji ti.ce. It aawunts to infi-action of not onty the pTovfaioas of Rulc 7 of tihe Rutes, 1999 but fhe provistons ofArticle 311(2) ofthe Coaistitution of ' $2006(2) C.G.L.J. 186) 2{2008 (UI) MPJR-CG 110} ll..L>ll..l.lL<^.t4uJ l?dju ^- India also. The otdcr is in fact penal ia iiaturc, haviag cwfl consequcnccs aad as such fbo elaborate provisfons of Rttle 7 offhe Rules 1999 are appMcabte in the case ofthe petitioner before tenumatin^ hls senriccs. (Sce the case of Dkalnraia Kosaria and Anjordas (supi^ } 8. Witti regaid to ttie avaitabiUly ofthe altemaMve reanedy, tt is wcU settted that fhe rule of exclusioa of writ jiuisdiGtton by availabilUy of aa altematiwe remedy is a rule of discretfoa atul not one of fhe coinpulsioH. The entire case rests <MI tte iafiaction of oonstitutional protection prescribed umier Article 311(2) offhe Constttution of India aad aca-applicatioa offfae stetutoiy provisions, as such the alteniatiye reiaedy may aot be a proper forum, at fhte st^e. 9. In vkw of the foregoixig, the nnpiigaed Qiderdated 13.10.2005 (Annexurc P/7) is bad aad is quashcd. 10. On ffac question ofbacte wages, no fouadatioa has beea laal to csteblish the fact that whether the pettdoner was gamfulty eiaployed elsewhcre or notduru^ flus pcriod. Eveu ollierwise, keepiag in view that the termiaation cader has been vitiated aot oa taerit but oa account of iion-conipliance of fhe statutory provisions before temunatmg fhe semces of the petitioner, 30% back wages would be sitfficieat iu liic iatesest ofjustice. 11. Accordingty, fhc wdt petition is aUowcd. No order aato costs. 12. HQ'Bever, the respondents/authorities, on ftrir tequest are gianted liberty to take &esb. steps iaaccordaace with Rutel 7 of the Ridcs, 1999, ifso advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agmhotri Judge ..>«,L.u-U.