Kl ISi ^i K K B- k'^ (\, /"• INJll£JjIGH_COURTOF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR, ^l \ CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION No. ^-c'^3 OF Z004/ Versus RESPONDENTS Bippan Go'dar, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Shri Sharad Chandra Goidar, Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat, Uda'.pur, Biock KslHbeda, District Kanker (Chhattlsgarh) 1. State of Chhattisgarh thro'jgh the SscrstQFV. OsD9rtmerst Qs Panchayat and Rura! Developr"ep,t, D. K. S. Bhawan, ^-nt'rai^va -Paini sr fr'hhsMicnRrh ' ^Bnd^-n^^ili^iJr'ik^^h'v^ifl^/^aB ^ v»du Dio^av-^ns^^^tia BNy .^..•_. .•iiV' The Coilector. Kanker. ^r v y a Yl^ 1 B fl~<h.^rf a y ^\.-s?-'' Kanker (Chhattlsgarh) ff^'~ Dlstricl 0^' /e?"-' f/^' .**'^. Dpniitv Oirprtnr- P^nr'nav/at' ^ 1^^ ^^ It/ ^ld ^ y B-/ I n '*•' ^»rf^^/ D r • ^-^ fl N ^^ 1 • ^^ V ^rfa ^ H-/^ ^'i^/^ Socia! We'.fare, Kanker, blstrict Kanker (Chhattlsgarh) /..•/ ~>. ••" ^s-^' ..••"' .^>- ^ . '^"~ / -' '^^/''' <l-'J:l"v" '</'/' ^ 4. Janpad Panchayat, Koliibeda, through 'ts Chief Executlve k^Rfilfpr ^r'hhsMlcnsrl ^-^.niiUt.i-t-iy-.i I tj 5. Gram Panchayat Udaipur through the Sarpanch, Udaipur, Biock, Koiiibeda, District Kanker :isgarh) -<- - "-WRIT PETITIO!<LIJJ'iD_ER ARTICLE 226/227 OF_JHE. CONSTITUTION OEJMDIA \-^W^Jl XI-HC-78 3I^TW R-li* tWT SfI^T a'liti A> HWtTT aWTcb TSI'-W^f^ siTnyis, fc|dlti^< _._ <^> •^•^o 33 ^ 200 ^ 3n^?T4;|cb (li?<'dcl'^lT) SRflW (if?(T an^r 27 10"OGe Shrl S.R.J. Jaiswa!, led Shri Sandeep Yadav, No. 1,.2&3. Shri Ah3k Bakshi, iearri ! hs oetiaoner nas' T!I^ .'".^^r ^•a^fiar' 'I f^ ^ QFin^l /^rl iiUs;! yisL^U ! l-J.Q..^.'\J\J^ {r\t 'snchavat and Sociai Welfi Section 69 (1) of Panchayat| as Secretarv of Gram Panchl District Bastar, has been can; Learned counse! for th| been passed without conduj p91.1TiOH;Si v¥3S iHVOiVSCI iH 0; resDonsible for destroving th^ csuse notice issued to. him imuiianed order. Froin the di thst tho osttionsr wss' ©arlid from 2SL" October 1995 bv Annexu'e P/2. Subseausnl Bastar vide his order date Secretarv of 'Gram Panchavi ^rafepfrr iiTqcff ff Wt ri^zrc ^73tf^IT3n^T irned counsel for the petitioner. learned Dy. G. A. for the State/resoondents ed counse! for resoondent No. 4. d the instant petition against the imDUfinsd nexure P/1) passed by Dsputy DirecSor, ire, Kanker whereby the notification under Rai Adhinivam 2000 dectarina the oetitioner } ?/^/>^ 1-"':; 1 r' !-'*-' ^ fr^-^ J^ Q^- i^]^t^-^'\ /-t"^ ^r /^-.'1 f.^ i'r'--^./u'•r-' ^Vi-st,, »J<-i&3iy:J; , uf-tHySi^ r'ffiH^HssVs^", i'^uVii^^Uu. 'AiiAH \.vi?rs in"i'n^'iic"& &'.T?5{n:'? li")f'E LT j ii J JI j a^U^^LC? ^ S S ^\-^^, ^^''^^<^t/^.*^i^^.1' c^ ^ I^^^^r^ "I^^S^1 ?'^;^ ^^^-.^f.^\ j'^.vr^. f-\y E^--~^1 c yyii-sunyi yusji'nus uwi. i-ny ^i.j^v^ uiuy; Nsi; /IIHQ i. v CHuUsjy on THS siiscsTion Hi^i. ;;n£ bezzisment of 6600 quinta!s of rice and was food permit and also did not repiy ths show sn tnis rs^sfd tiil tns ci3ts QT passin^ CT ^cun^si'its annexsd with'the Dstitlon it is clssr r appointed ss Panchayat Karmi with effect ]he Gram Panchayat, Udaipur vide order of Iv, Cotlecic", Panchavst Section, District ^d 19.6.1997 appointed the petitione;' a; it, Udaipur. After issuance of show caus' P.T.O. XI-HC-78 a.n^T^irfq-iN; (PIT3n^?Tst)li=t> *nq?TTa)»llt*> 3^''<if<<ici<<, ®'rfl«'is,Riciiuy __ ^x^- 2 o.33 ^ 200^ 3<l^l 4a«n(l^I^'a^?) SRTIW fl)?tT STI^T —2-- notice the oetitioner replied th|e same vide Annexure P/4. However, the imDugned order has been oast the ground-that- the petitioner| issued to him. Learned counset for th^ this Court dated 25.7.2006 oa Rooplal Navak Vs. State of Chhattisaarh and others, submits that the impugned • order cannot be| •departmenta! enquiry as envi^ Sewice (Disciptine and Appeal] Shri Alok Bakshi, lear concedes that the impugned o regular departmental enquiry the order cited. above is square|ly I have heard learned oerused the return filed on annexed with the petition: From perusal of impugn same has been passed oniy m<ifCT<fl-i Hi*iCTTfftefc^l'<Ri«i< ^srf^wsn^r >ed without conducting any enquiry oniy on has failed to rgply the show cause notice petitioner plac«.^ reliance on the order of sed in W.P.No. 165S/2006 in the matter of passed without conducting a regular aged under Rule 7 of the M.P. Panchayat Rules, 1999. learhed counsel for respondent No. 4 fairly rder has been passed without conducting a s envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules and aciplicabte in the instant case. c()unsel for.the respective parties and have betlalf of respondent No. 4 and the documents bd order of Annexure P/1 it is found that the fter issuance of show cause notice to the P.T.O. .-i .ti t.1u:itliui XI-HC-78 sii^rqirfew (WT 3II^?T stiiro ,tfl !li]ji,..L^L»-ae^£. »TWC'ITa»qT<d 3^ •<if<<i<'i<i,WI<-i'is, Riwiuy, .._ tu • f. 2053 CT^ 2001? 3n^5T <ra% ('i^3a^) TOnwBf^ffsn^r. ~3- petitioner whereby certain al|e< made against him and he wa^ ftis also alieged that fhe petifi^ner impugned is admittedly. a ma| Ruies and the same can ncit nctt Service without conductina al under Rule 7 of the Ruies and PancHavat bv the Deputv Director, P/1) deserves to be quashed.] In the resuit. and for aliowed. impugned order da| The petitioner is eniitled to ^ from the quashing of the 10.6.2004. It ts further mad4 way of respondents from initi^ for the aileaed misconduct strictiy in accordance with !a\^ Rule-7 of the Rules. Howevet igation of embezziement of rice has been aileged to have destroyed the food permit. did not repiythe said notice. The order i0f penaity in terms of Rule 5 (b) (iv) of the it be imposed on a member of Panchayat regular departmental enquiry as envisagec! forthis reason, the impugned order passed and Socia! Weifare,.Kanker (Annexure qiiqti'i'tl-i iiK<nT^'teA<Ri<?:i< ^; srf^ir aii^Sl the foregoing discussions, writ petition is :ed 10.6.2004 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. benefits, pecuniary and otherwise flovi/ing impugned order of Annex^ire P/1 dated ctear that this order shail not come in the ting disdplinary action against the petitioner ;orrimitted by him, if they are so advised, and in terms of the procedure prescribed in there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Dtiirendra Mishra ' Judge ~"KTS.