@ m THE‘HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S) i 5 3R 1 2007 (S34 L ‘ WHCHAND SETHIYA 8/0 SHRlynl SINGH Aged abougé Yrs Occupation, Panchayat ‘ Secreta.ry,. Village Panchayat r, PETITIONER Khamargaon,‘Janpad Panchayat i and Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt \' Bastar (C.G.) RE$PONDENTS ySTATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through, Secretary Panchayat and Social welfare depa/rtment ‘ ' DK. S. Bhawan Raipur. (CG) %/COLLECTOR, BASTAR Jagdalpur C.G. zo0 i ’7 3/./I§UPTY DIRECTOR, Panchayat % Qwp. NGX/ and §ocial welfare, District, Bastar, Jagdalpur (9G4 " 4/s'v3‘ biv'rsmrm. omc'Ek (R) (x Jagda‘lpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G.) g/bHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Jan—pad Panchayat Jagdalpur. 6¢SARPANCH / Viltlage Panchayat Khamargaom danpad Panchayat and ’i‘énsil . Jagdalpur. Distt Bastar (C.G’.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1598 of 2007 Petitioner Sukhchand Sethiya Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 85 others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. 1to4. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate for the respondent No. 6. O R D E R (Oral) Hea. (Passed on this 24th day of February, 2010) 1. The present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the €dvertisement notice/order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P/ 1), passed by the respondent No.6/Sarpanch and the order dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure P/2), passed by the respondent No.3/Deputy Director, whereby and Whereunder the petitioner has been removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi/ Secretary. ’ 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 29.7.2000 the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in Village Panchayat - Khamaragaon, Tahsil — Jagdalpur, District — Bastar. Subsequently, by order dated 9.10.2000 (Annexure P/3) the petitioner was declared as Secretary. On 16.6.2006 a show cause notice (Annexure P/4) was issued to the petitioner as well as the Sarpanch, by the S.D.O.(Revenue), Jagdalpur in Revenue Case No. 9/A-89(A—9)/O5—O6 alleging certain irregularities. The petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure P/5), denying all the allegations in categorical terms. The S.D.O. (Revenue), Jagdalpur by order dated 21.9.2006 directed removal of the Sarpanch, finding all the allegations levelled against her as proved. i l i rd w& By the impugned order dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure P/2), passed by the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, District — Bastar, Jagdalpur, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary on certain allegations and by the notice/order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P/ 1) applications have been invited from the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi, on which the petitioner was working. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that ‘\ since the mandatory, statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 were not followed before removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, the impugned order dated 5.4,2006 and the advertisement to the post dated 29.12.2006 were illegal and bad on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. In support of his submissions learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. 8; othersl, which was relied on in Anjordas Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8a othersz. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 6. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 provides for procedure before terminating service of a member of Panchayat. In the instant case, it is apparent that the said provisions were not followed, no definite charges were framed and the petitioner was not served with the statements of charges before holding an enquiry, leading to termination of the petitioner from his services and in fact neither the show cause notice was issued nor the enquiry was held. The termination was passed on the basis of certain allegations of misappropriation of funds and dereliction of duties. The impugned order ofremoval is unsustainable. 7. It is evident that the impugned removal order was passed without following the statutory and mandatory procedure of law, as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. The procedure for holding an enquiry is enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 for imposition of major penalty. Hence, the removal is bad and 1 {2006(2) C.G.L.J. 186} 2 {2008 (III) MPJR—CG 110} (w Vitiated on the ground of non—compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of the principles of natural justice. It amounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but also the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The order was in fact penal in nature, having civil consequences and as such compliance of the elaborate provisions, as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was mandatory in the present case. (See the case of Dhaluram Kosaria and Anjordas (supra)}. 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove that the petitioner was emoved from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary in an arbitrary manner, without following the principles of natural justice and further without following the statutory procedure, the petitioner remained out of the job since 5.4.2006 and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered great financial loss, thus grant of 30% back wages would sub-serve the interest ofjustice. 9. Resultantly, the petition is allowed with back wages, as afore—stated. The impugned order dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure P/2) is set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct committed by him, if so advised, in accordance with law and in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. No order asto costs. i f Satish K. Agnihotri ; Judge l Sdl- Thakur r