cS^, 6- •?1 BILASPUR P. S. N0. infSl i!l*iN(<t?aTl PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Pokeshwar Nag S/o Late Shri Ganpat Nag, aged about-37 years, Ex. Panchayat Secretary R/o village- Nawagaon, Tahsil- Kondagaon, Distt. Baster (C.G.). VERSUS l.1 State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) J Director, Panchayat and Social W.elfare, Raipur, (C.G.). 3. Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Jagdalpur, Distt. Baster (C.G.) -. Collector, Jagdalpur Distt. Baster (C.G. .5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Jagadatpur, Distt. Baster (C.G.). 6. ^Saipanch, Gram Panchayat- Nawagaon, Janpad Panchayat, Kondagaon, Distt. , Baster (C.G.). /• '. ' 7. Ludra Pratap Singh Thakur S/o Kanwal Singh Thakur, aged about-38 years, R/o village- Bhulnar, Gram Panchayat- Nawagaon, Tahsil- Kondagaon, Distt. Baster (C.G.j. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA The petitioner respectfullv hesrs tn ssnhmit as nnrier- / M/ \'.<C?\T r^.*' r' HIGH COURTOFCHHAmSGARH '.BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6524 OF 2010 PETITIONER PokeshwarNag RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticles 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri M.K. Sinha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for the respondent No.7. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 31st day of March, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and vatidity of the order dated 14-1-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Deputy Director (Panchayat & Social Welfare), Bastar at Jagdalpur, by which the respondent No.7 has been appointed as Panchayat Secretary in place ofthe petitioner. 2. The facts, in nutshell, for disposal of the case, are that the " petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary on 29-10-1995. However, all of a sudden by resolution dated 27-2-2008 passed by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner was removed from the post of PanchayatKarmi without following the due proeess oflaw. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner submitted.a representation dated 11-5-2010 (Annexure - P/10) before the Deputy Director (Panchayat & Social Welfare), Bastar, but no ajction has been taken on the same. Thus, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no charge-sheet has been issued and no enquiry has been conducted before the impugned removal orderwas passed. The impugned action was taken without complying with the mandatory provisions /& ^ ^ ':'s'"% ^^&^^: ^ ^ ilili lli Bl:if ffit c of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, (forshort'theRules, 1999'). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that admittedly, noenquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was conducted. Hbwever, showcause notice was served on the petitioner. 6. I have heardlearned counsel appearing forthe parties, perused the pleadings and the documentsappended thereto. 7. The question of law involved in this case isasto whether the petitioner, who was declared as Panchayat Secretary, can be removed from the post without complying with proper procedures as laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Admittedly, as averred by learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner that the petitioner was removed without supplying the charge-sheet and without conducting anyenquiry. 8. It is well-settled principleof law as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999that ifthe'GramPanchayatproposesto remove a Panchayat Karmi including Panchayat Secretary, the same may be done inaccordance with the prbcedure prescribed in Rule 7 oftheRules, 1999. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat, before passing the impugned order has not cdmplied with the provisions of Rule 7 of theRules,1999. 9. This Court, \n Dhaluram Kosaria v. State of CG and others, observed asurider: "19. It is further admitted by all the parties that the procedure for holding an enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 oftheRules 1999 for imposition of major penalty, that has not been followed. l-1ence; the termination is bad and vitiated on the ground of hon-compliance of the statutory provisibns and denial ofthe prineiples of natural justice. It amouhts tQ irtfraction of not only the provisions OfRule7 of the Rules 1999 but the provisions of Article 311(2) of the r2006(2)CGLJ186 ^ l il •:il' •il ^[.W. II ^ '^ 10. :& Constitution of India also. The order is in fact penat in naturehaving civitconseq-uences and assuch the elaborate provisionof Rule 7 ofthe Rules 1999wasapplicable in the case of the petitioner before terminating his services." Further, in Beegam Ram v State of CG and others , this Court observed as under: 1 . . . '•..•': ' • . "7. With regard to exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitutipn of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Courtincatena of decisions havelaid down the prineiptes of law that the High Court has jurisdiction and power to interfere if the Court is satisfied that the error is manifest and apparent on the face pf the proceedings, clear ignoranee and utter disregard bf provisions of law and/or a grave injustice or gross violation of justice has occasiohed thereby. In the present case, RevenueAuthorities/Tribunals havecompletely ignored thestatutory prcivisions of Ryle'7 of the Rules, 1999 and Were is manifest error of the facts on the face of record, without requiring any investigation or enquiry. Admittectly, the allegedshow cause notice dated 27.2.2000 (Annexure R/3) could not have been served through the Gudi Kotwar on 24.02.2000, three days before the issue ofshow cause notice. No notice as contemplated under Ryle 7 of the Rules 1999 was issued to the petitioner. Prior to submission of the enquiry report on 29.6.200D (AnneXure Fy5), the Gram Panchayat resolvea ta remove the petitioner from his serviceon 18.05,2000 andpursuant therebf, order of the removal was passed on 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/3)" Non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of naturat justice tantamounts t6 infractionof not onlythe provisions of Rule 7of the Rules, 1999 buttheprovisionsofArticle 311 (2)of the Constitution pf India also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting withcivilconsequences, cannot be passed without holding enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions, as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Itis, thus, clear thatthe respondents have not follbwed the statutory provisions of law before passing the impugned order. 2006 LT (CG) 41 ^?^^L^U-^^ w^.^ I v-SsS::--^v<ei S •q!, tfe.....— II•I ^L:it- tl!;';:t 11 In view of foregoing, theimpugned order dated 14-1-2009 (Annexure - P/1) is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take fresh steps in aGCordance with Rule 7 of the Rules 1999, if so advised. Gowri ^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -y\ <'.