r'?"^i ^ (0^'^ IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR (C.G.) ^^^~" WRIT PETITION (S) NO... ......2006 PETITIONER ^ Laxmi Prasad Chauhan S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Chauhan, aged about 35 years, Panchyat Karmi, Gram Panchyat Ghatora, Block and Tahsil-Sarangarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) WERSUS BESPONDENTS ^l •^' <^^/;2 Ji^^\5!^" ^^" v^"^ /5 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Panchyat & Rural Development Department D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The prescribed Authority and Deputy Director Panchyat and Social Welfare Raigarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer, Sarangarh, Dist. Rairarh C.G. Gram Panchyat Ghatora, through Sarapanch of Gram Panchyat Ghatora, . Block & thasil- Sarangarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) BhojRam Chouhan- (Assistant Gram-Fanchyat Officer) Sachiv of Gram Panchyat-Ghatora, Block & Tahsil Sarangarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICXJ! 226/227 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN IC^TURE OF CEERTIOBARI, WKStDStSOS, PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITBBLE WRIT OR WRITS , DIRECTION OR DIBECTIONS, OBDER OR ORDEBES: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetitionJSLNo. 5455 of 2006 Petitioner: Laxmi Prasad Chauhaa Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers <:y? Sln^le Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. A^iihotri. Shri Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Smt Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri P. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate for the respondent No.4. Noue for fhe respondents No. 3 and 5. O^DER ( 9th0ctober, 2006) The foUowirig order ofthe Court was passed by Satish K. Agaihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was employed as Panchayat Karmi by fhe respondent No.4 vide order dated 30.10.1995 (Anaexure P/3). Thereafter he was appoiated as Panchayat Secretaiy vide ordcr dated 19.12.1995 (Annexure P/4). 2. On fhe basis ofuitemal enquiry, the respondent No.2 passed the order dated 14.9.2006, addressed to the respondent No.4 that there are certain aUegations of in-egiilarities in disburseineat of pension agauist the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has further dinected fhe respondent No.4 to take appropriate action aganist fhe petitioner in accordance wifh law, foUowuig the proper procedure as prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Semce (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules, 1999'). 3. The petitioner has challenged fUe oider/letter dated 14.9.2006 which was addressed to the Sarpanch/Secnetary when no copy was endorsed to the petitioner, stating fhat the services of the petitioner is being reinoved without foUowing the principles of natural justice aad without coniplying with the provisions of law. 4. On perusal of the inipugned order/letter dated 14.9.2006 it appears that ftie respondent No,2 has directed fhat the action for irregularities coniinitted by the petitioner be taken in accordaace with law. The order itself is not an order of reuioval. Hence, fhis petition is preinature, misconceived and devoid of inerit The petitioner has suppressed inaterial facts in his petition and has tried to inislead fhe Court by nialdng incorrect subuussions. 5. For the reasons stated above this petition is disinissed wifh cost quantified to be a suin ofRs. 2000/-, payable withui a period of four weeks to the High Court legal Aid Coinmittee. Sd/- 1 SatisbK.Agnib°m Thakur