rf PEBTlONER; .<-'"'<N'.y^ ..••••:^A^:^--' .^,^y Alna R^n-i °^'hn !>-3ctli.t S/ o Shri. Parkhif Sahii, Aged about 40 years, R/oVillagc Kaparh.uiga, Block Barainkela, Telisil Sai'aiigarh, Distt. Raigarli ( C.G.'j. ^»^*i r*s\ -•••" ^-•" Versiis - pp^pO ?j^p "MT1% - lM=''^?4^.'-'i'i^-^&^^ i >3- 1. •Jan.pad.Paiicnayat, Baramkela, Throiig.fa: Its Chief Executive Officcr, at Baramlscla. Dist.Raigarh ( C.-O.). Gram Panchayat, Kapamuiga, TIirough Its Secretar\r. Block'.Baramkela, Dist. Raigarh Chliattisgarh. w :tju^ Iri a ^ XI-HC-22 an^T^r f^iwsn^r aiHWfffScT 3^r "^i-qiM-i), ®Tf1y'iis,Ridi-y^ STT^W^^cb / .M.P.NG . 30^7/Z<5T73 f^re% an^T ^RTRR: fff?tT 21,09.2006 Sbri S.R.J. Jaiswal. Ku. Shamiila Suiah4 Ranbir Siueh Marhas, Heard fiiiaUv with thel Order dictated as foUdws cit>unsel for the petitioner. t4i, couiisel appears on belialf of Shri for the respondents. lconsent ofthe oarties. counfeel The brief facts are Panchavat Kanni of Gr^; 25.08.2003. Oa some allest was served witb show-caus^ [hat this petitioner was apDointed as fhat he did not reolv to the 'said notice and thereafter. a ineetuis of meetmg. fhe petitioner was Karmi/Secretan' bv Giam issued bv the Saroanch. TU that after such reDioval o| Leanied counsel forl renioval fi-om the post of ( oeiialtv' as defined under order of reinoval would not Gram Panchavat was not 'hl'Mfff'sfl-) WCRfr'fftei^l'iRlWII. ^Slf^TTSTI^T m. Pauchavat KaDartun.aa prior to ;d irreeularities coinmitted bv him, he notice bv Gram Paiichavat. It is stated Soecial Gram. Sabha was cdnducted on 28.08.2003 and iu the said removed froin the cost of Pauchavat Babha and an order to this effect was document Aiinexure-P/ 1 woiild show fhe petitioner, the Sai-panch wrote a nienio to fhe Chief Execi<tive Officer informine reiaoval of the netitioner froni the said nosl fhe petitioner areues that siace the 'anchavat Karaui/ Secretan' is a maior ?u!e 5 of the M.P. Panchavat Service fDjscioliae aad AoDeal) RiUes 1999. flierefore. without foUowins ffae nrocedure laid down utider Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules, an have been oassed, He subniits that fbe oiaoeteat to oass such an ^~— j^rcler .aad ^fNr) XI-HC-22 an^r^T f^iwan^r Stl4ichfff??I' aittTEfl vatti 3sr ;3ipn?w, ®xflfl'i6,Riai<Hy 37T^?T4ach JAf'^^0.' ? 0'27/2-w^ f^% sn^TSTdTmgfer -2 onlv the steps could have be< further subinits ttiat the ordetr suuulied to him, therefore. th<| He also subnuts that fhe subl covered wifh ftie decision i|i Chandra Patel -vs- Stafle of Chhcattlsgarh and others, rcoorted in 2004 Law Tinlues /C.G.LPo. 142 aad the Division adid Bench decision of this Courtl Sinele Bench decision offhis Thoueh fhe retum has| not dispute the above facts Consideriae the facts uetition is aUowed in tennsl petitions. The renioval of fhe Kamii/Secretary bv Gram there in order contaiaed consequence of quashment of However, tf so reqiiiredl initiate fhe disciplinanr accordaace with the provisi<t above. No order as to costs. <»ii<<fa4'i-<wraYa fs^S li^RZTC ^sri^iran^T ;n taken bv tiie Gram Paachavat. He of renioval of the uetitioner was not same has notjieea filed in this case. lect inatter of this uetition is squarelv lendered ia fhe matter of Prakash m W.P. No. 1656/2006 aud also in ICourtinW.P. No. 2356/2004. not been filed but Ku. Siaehai does leeal position. bad circumstances of fhe case, this of the orders passed ui above writ Ipetitioner froin the post of Panchavat Flanchavat, fhe reference of which is |in Annexure-P/1 is quashed. The removal shaU. be foUowed. fhe State authorities shall be free to piloceedme aeauist the petitioner iu >ns of fhe Rules of 1999 refen'ed to Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge ^//<A (tft^^wr) '^ ~~\.