•^ ^ V-" IN THE HIOH COURT OF CHH&TT EiQ&RH &T B ILiCiPUR WRCT PETmON NO.-^c'07oF 2003 / ! PSTTTIONER VEBSOS tTpendra Dubey, Son o£ Jtagal Oubey, aged about 33 years, panchayat Karml, Gram panchayat Budha Bagicha, Block - Rajpar Olst - Surguja, SiaBdbkapur, ( C G ). iB RESPOIOENTS ...^€^ ^•^^ ^- s 1. Collector, Dj.st s Surguja, fiinbj.kapur, ( C G ). 2« CEO, janpat Panchayat, Rajpur, Distt s Surguja, ( C~G ). /3. Gram panchayat through / Sarpanch, Budha Bagicha, EUlstt s Surguja, C G. 4. panchayat& Spcial welfare Organiser, oanpat Panehayat Bloclt ; Raj'pur, Distt ; Surguja, C.G. ii a WRIT PEETITION UNDER &RTICLES 226/227 OF THE COKSTrTUTION OF INDI& E: '!ihM B'i sfei, .»-.>"-i!'. !ti P i !Fi8ii 1 -jy / /^> L<> r^^ HIGH COLTRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETmONNo. 1007 of2003 PETmONER UiUpendra Dubey. VERSUS Collector, District : Surguja, Ambikapur RESPONDENTS V/RFf PETmON UNDER ,4RTICLE 226/227 OF.THE CONSTITLTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Safeh K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel law>'er forthe State/respondent No.l. Shri Lokesh Singh, Advocate fortlie respondent No. 2 & 4. Sbri Rakesh Jha, Advocate with Shri J.P.Shukla, Advocate for tlie respondent No.3. (Passed on 05ttl day of October, 2010) Heard leamed coimsel forthe parties. 1. The petitioner was working as Panchayat. Karmi at Gram Panchayat, Budha Bagicha, District Surguja. By order dated 05.03.2003 (Annexure P/l), services ofthe petitioner as Panchayat Karmi was terminated. The petitioner has impugned the said order in this writ petition on the ground fhat fhe impugned order termmatmg the services ofthe petitioner from fhe post of Panchayat Karmi was passed wifhout followmg the provisions enshrined in Rule 7 ofC.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules"). 2. Leamed counsel appearing for flie petitioner subniits that Ruie 7 provides for detailed procedure for imposing major penalties i.e. removal from service. Accordmg to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, removal from service comes vvithin the purview ofmajor penalty. AF^ .10-1fl +- 3. Leamed counsei appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits fiiat admittedly, tlie procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules was not foilowed. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.12.2002 (Annexure P/2) and reply (Annexure P/3) thereto was filed by the petitioner. On the basis ofsiiow cause notice and reply, the impugned order was passed. 4. Be tliat as it may, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi. It is not the case ofthe respondents that the procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules was followed before the inipugned order was passed. A Division Bench ofthis Court in its order dated 25.07.2006 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 held that Rule 7 ofthe Rules have to be followed in the case oftermination ofa Panchayat employee. 5. This Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State ofC.G. & Others , Beegan Ram v. State ofC.G. & Others , and Prakash Chand Soni v. State ofC.G. & Other/, held that the non-compliance ofthe statutory provisions and denial ofprinciples ofnatural justice taiitalnount to mfraction ofnot only the provisions of Rule 7 oftlie Rules of 1999, but, the provisions of Article 311 (2) ofthe Constitution oflndia also. The order ofremoval being penal in nature, visiting the civil consequences, camiot be passed without holding the enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions as presQribed m Rule 7 ofthe Rules. 6. It is thus clear tiiat the respondents have not followed the statutory provisions of law before imposing the major penalty ofremovalofthe petitioner from the post ofPanchayat Karmi. (•^^ 7. The statutory procedures are required to be followed to do substantial justice. The statirtory provisions are normally mandatory, tf it results into failure ofjustice.'Non-compliance ofstatutory provisions asprescribed, in the case on hand, under Rule 7 ofthe Rules, would lead to injustice. Thus, fhe authorities are under an obligation to comply with the statutory procedures as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, before imposing major penalty ofremoval from the post ofPanchayt Karmi. 8. For tlie reasons and the discussion made hereinabove, and the dicta laid down by the Court in various cases (supra), the order dated 05.03.2003 (Aimexure P/l), is bad and is quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondents from mitiating the proceedings against the petitioner, if they are so advised, strictly in accordance with law aiid in tenns offhe procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. 9. Accordmgly, fhe writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 10.No order asto costs. Sd/- Satfsh K. Agnihotri Judge 1 2006(2)cou 186 2 2006 LT (CG) 41 32005LT(CG)151