AMENDED PETITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE HKSH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} WRIT PETITtON NO. 2441 OF 2003 PETITIONER Smt. Urmilo Lahore, aged about 25 years, wife of Chami Lol by caste SA’mami, occupaEon Panchaaf Karmi, Gram Panchayar‘ Paraadakalan, Resident of Parasdakalan, Tahsii Sakr‘i, District Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS i. The State of Chhattisgarh, 5V” through — the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Buiiding, Raipur, Tahsii and District Rafpur (C.G.) 2. The Coiiector, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer, iaV/q Janpad Panchayat Sakti, District Janjgir—Champa (CG) 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Sakti, Tehsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir—Champa (CG) KW :‘3 Smf. Kmc Boi, Sarponch, Gram Panchoya’r, Parsodo Kalcm, Vfkas Khand, Sakfi, Dis’r. gpfg—am (CG Gram Pancyaf Parasada Kalan, ihrough its Secrefory Vikos Khand, Sakfi Disfn‘cf Jan/‘gir-Champa CG WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA N Jifghpo . ha \7, 2 N?“ Panchayat and on approval by the Gram Saba, the impugned order of removal was passed on 27.03.2002 (Annexure P-3). Being aggrieVed, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure P—17) ‘before the S.D.O., specifically impugning the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 08.03.2002 and subsequent approval by the Gram Sabha in its meeting held on 26.03.2002 and the consequential order passed on 27.03.2002. The S.D.O., by the impugned order dated 19.03.2003 (Annexure P—4) came to the conclusion that there is no provision to challenge the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and subsequent approval by the Gram Sabha. The S.D.O. completely ignored the challenge of the petitioner in the appeal to the impugned Order of removal dated 27.03.2002. ‘Thus, this petition against the impugned order dated 19.03.2003 passed by the S.D.O. There was specific challenge to the impugned removal order dated 27.03.2002 (Annexure P-3), as evident from the memo of appeal (Annexure P717). Thus, the finding of the S.D.O. that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and subsequent approval of the Gram Sabha, cannot be the subject matter of challenge, ignoring completely the challenge to the order of removal. The impugned. judgment dated 19.03.2003 (Annexure P-4) suffers from perversity, illegality and jurisdictional error on the ground that the finding recorded is contrary to the records. There is no dispute that before the resolution was passed and the same was approved by the Gram Saba, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing or no steps enshrined in Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service ZDiscipline and Appeal) vag Rules, 1999, (for short 'the Rules, 1999’) was taken. The procedure prescribed therein is mandatory and no order of removal can be passed without taking recourse to the secific provisions of law. This Court, in Dhaluram Kosan‘a v. State of CG and others7, observed as under: “19. it is further admitted by all the parties that the procedure for holding an enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 for imposition of major penalty, that has not been followed. Hence, the termination is bad and vitiated on the ground of non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of the principles of natural justice. lt amounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 but the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India also. The order is in fact penal in nature having civil consequences and as such the elaborate provision of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was applicable 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: “7. With regard to exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, the Hon’ble'Supreme Court in catena of decisions have laid‘down the principles 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 of the proceedings, clear ignorance and utter disregard of provisions of law and/or a grave injustice or gross violation of justice has occasioned thereby. ln the present case, Revenue Authorities/Tribunals have completely ignored the statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 and there is manifest error of the facts on the face of record, without requiring any investigation or enquiry. Admittedly, the alleged show 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 of t 1 2006 (2) ceLJ 186 , 2 2006 LT (CG) 41 p show cause notice. No notice as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was issued to the petitioner. Prior to submission of the enquiry report on 29.6.2000 (Annexure R/5), the Gram Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner from his service on 18.05.2000 and pursuant thereof, order of the removal was passed on 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/3)” Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, as afore-stated. the impugned order dated 19.03.2003 (Annexure P-4) is set aside, whereunder, the resolution dated 31 08.2002 (Annexure P—1), approval by Gram Sabha dated 26.03.2002 (Annexure P—2) and the order of removal dated 27.03.2002 (Annexure P-3) were confirmed. Thus, the order of removal dated 27.03.2002 is quashed. lt is made clear that no resolution can be made effective without proper order. Thus, it is not necessary to quash the resolution in this petition. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the petition is altowe. The d petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from quashing of the removal order and impugned order dated 19.03.2003 (Annexure P-4). There shall be no order astocosts.