.,rBC"r ti;f c/1' IH THE HIGH 03BKE C& JUDIG&TURE 01- CHHMSISGftRH_AT _B.I&ASHj_R. WRIIr PETITION HO. 1^0 /2001. WRIT E'ETCTXON USDER ARTIOiES 226Z227_OB_THE a3HSTITOTIOH OS INDIA. PEa'ZCIONER. ^^y:./' 'Rajkun^r, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Bhiilshi SSm Sahu, resident of viliage lardl, Sehsil janjgir, Distt. janjgir-Champa, Chhaft.Lsgarh. Ver3us» / ^ ?: i'~<-^- ^ ^^ to'~" ^\o' yi. ^ cy 3s- •• >^fl ^•" -"".i--''?^ .••-". -i ;»k" ^y ,v>^.^ ^ RESPONDEHrSjL 1. - S-tats of Chhattisgarh through \^' ;, Priiacipal secretary panch?yat and Gramin Vikas, D.K.Conpiex. B&ipur.Chhafctisgarh. 2. &dditioi^l Collector, janjgir- Oianpa. Chhafctisgarb, 3. Sub Divisional Officer tKeveaue) janjglr, Distt.janjgir-0-iampa, Qiha-fctisgarh. 4. jPublic Htealth Engireer.&kaltara. Distt. aanjg ar- Champa,^ Cbha-btisgarh. 5. Giceci Panchayat. Hardi. Tehsil JSnjgir, Distt.janj'gxr- Ghanpa, Chhattisgarh Through Smfc. Gita BaiMird^ sarpanch, . a:am Panchayat, Hardi.; 1. PAKFIOJXABS QE' THB PE.TI'BIONBR. &s nei-ttiORed in -fche cause Ti'tle» 2. PA&'EIGUI^&S OE THE fiESPONQENrS. &s mentiOEed in tbe cause Title. 3. PARTICl&ABS OT THE ©KDE^&S&IISIST VjHICH THE SSSI'SJOS IS DE, (1) The ins-fcant writ petitiaa is directed againsfc order m^ a— --• . ;"31 TF^ lS~ // • " 6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION NOJ8SO OF 2001 Rajkumar versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. Parag Kotecha with Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. " Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Government Advocate forthe State/respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Indrasen Sahu, counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. ORDER (Passed on 15tn of November, 2006) SStSS The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in the year 1995. The petitidner was issued a show cause notice by Gram Panchayat, Hardi by order dated 30-12-2000 (Annexure P-4). Pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed his reply dated 6-1-2001 (Annexure P-5). which was received in the office of Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Hardi, Block Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa on 7-1-2001. The Gram Panchayat, Hardi, wthout following the provisions of Rule 7 of the M.P. Panchayat Service (Dlscipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (henceforth 'the Rules of 1999'), proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner and by resolution dated 22-1-2001, which was suteequently approved by the Gram Sabha in its meeting dated 23-1-2001, terminated the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi vide order dated 31-1-2001 (Annexure P-1). 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appea! under Rute 3 of the M.P. Panchayats (Appeat and Revision) Rules, 1995 (henceforth 'the Rules of 1995') before the Sub-Divisional OfRcer, Janjgir-Champa being Appeal Case No.44A89COOO-2001. The Sub- Divisional Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 30-4-2001 (Annexure P-2), recorded a finding that the petitioner had not filect any reply to the show cause nofee issued by the Gram Panchayat. The finding is perverse on the face of it as reply dated 6-1-2001 (Annexure P-5) cteariy indicates that the reply was receh/ed in the office of the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, l-1ardi, Block Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champaon 7-1-2001. 8;»*:S]'J!I!l!t 3. Being further aggrieved, ihe petitioner preferred a second appeal under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995 before the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa being Appeal Case No.20A-89/2000-2001. The Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa, vide order dated 3-7-2001 (Annexure P-3), confirmed the finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Janjgir-Champa and committed the same perversity as recorded by the Sub-Divlsional OfRcer. 4. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the order of termination dated 31-1-2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Gram Panchayat, Hardi, order dated 30-4-2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Janjgir-Champa and order dated 3-7-2001 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional ^ -V, Collector, Janjgir-Champa upholding the order of removal dated 31-1- 2001 (Annexure P-1) as being just and iegal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the petition and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the Courts/Tribunals betow have failed to apply their mind to the lega! provisions as enshrined in Rule 7 ofthe Rules of 1999. It is cleariy provided that in case of termination of a Panchayat employee, Rute 7 of the Rules of 1999 has to be foll<med in its letter and spirit. The findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector are pen/erse as the records clearly indicate that reply of the show cause notice was sent by the petitioner, which was duly received in the office of the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Hardi, Block Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa on 7-1-2001. The Gram Panchayat, without fotlowing the procedure for imposition of major penalty of termination, proceeded to terminate services of the petitioner by way of resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, which is not permissible in law. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U. P. State Agm Industries CorpwaSon ttd. and another1 has observed in para 34, as under:- "34. But in cases where the termination is preceded by an enquiry and evidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature are arrwed at behind the back ofthe officer and where on the basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an order wilt be violatlve of the princlples of natural justtee inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry is to find out the truth of the alleflations with a view to punish him and not merely to gather evidence for a fijture regular dspartmental enquiry. In such cases, the termination is to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and will be punitive." g^ StSSM 7. This Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. & others2, Beegan Ram Vs. State of C.G. & others , and Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State of C. G. & others* 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 ofArticie 311(2) ofthe Constitution of India a!so. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting with civil consequences, cannot be passed without holding the enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions as prescribed in Rule 7 of ie Rulesof1999. lliiES""' 8. It is thus clear that the Gram Panchayat has not followed the statutory provisionS of law before imposing the major penalty of removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. 9. For the reasons and the discussions made hereinabove and the dicta laid down by the Court in various cases (Supra), the order of removal dated 31-1-2001 (Annexure P-1) is bad and is quashed. 10. On the question of back wages, no foundation has been laid to estabiish the fact that whether the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere or not during this period. Even otherwise keeping in view the fact that the termination order has been vitiated not on merit l!i;ilt68!t|g but on account of non-compliance of the statutory provisions before terminating the services of the petitioner, 30% back wages would be sufRcient in the interest of justice. The liberty is reserved to the Gram Panchayat to initiate cfe novo enquiry on the alleged irregularities, if so advised. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above wtth costs quantified to be a sum of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand). '~-— Sd/- , Satish K. Agsiihotri Judge 1 (1999)23cc21 2 2006(2)CQLJ 186 3 2006 L.T. (C.G.) 41 4 2005 L.T.(C.G.) 151 Gcpa!