•^^. • •'^-.. .. n d-a' SIN6LE BENCH ^5' V IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. No.13)^ of 2005 PETITIONER / RESPONDENTS l! \€^ ..•i5^^^' Jf^Q^~ ^ L, \...<'^^-" ,^^ ^^^ >••'.. j ^y^y' '^••••? 3. 4. Pradeep Kumar Patel, S/o. Shri Laxmi Nidhi Patel, Aged about 34 years, Occupation - Service (Panchayat Karmi), Village - Panchayat Dhanagar, Block, Tahsil 85 District - RaiffOr^C.G.) VBRSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary,' Panchayat and Social Welfare Chhattisgarh Government Raipur. Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, District Raigarh Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) -^ -WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF ^y^ ^&^C CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'L—.JL^ ^ •^^ cr XI-HC-78 W^TcFlf^T^ cf^t3^?T$h^I<=h 3^5T ^II^Id^, ^Tf1<r1ll<o, fstdK-iy wiWCTt^ .w.i?.^A%.\A.^(^s2oo 3< 1^1 4sl«b(<ic<^6iyT) ^«ll^K^f?cTW^T 4-7-2006:- Smt. Hamida Siddique, Miss Dipali Pandey, Pan^ and4. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, cc<i Shri R.S. Patei, counse! f4r i.A. No.450/2006, appii| aliowed. Shri R.S. Patei, Advocalte Return and rejoinder have| 1 have heard iearned coun|s 3y the instant petition, propriety and correctness of ti| passed by the prescribed authc) Socia! Welfare Department w! Panchayat Sachiv under Sectior Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 has b< 19-4-2005 passed bythe Coilect In the repiy of responc prescrlbed authority is empowen Karmi under Section 69 (1) of Adhiniyam, 1993. The prescribe^ change the said notification. opportunity of hearing to tne pet was notified as Secretary hasb( vide order dated 6.9.2004. in petitioner has been appointed and It Is for the Gram Panchays <=hl^lfd^1^ Hi^cnTffte1c^'<Ri<^i< ^3T^TW^T c4unsei for the petitioner. Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1, 2 insel for respondent No.3 the intervener. ;ation for permission to intervene, is c^te, is permitted to intervene. been filed by the parties. »elfor the parties for finai disposal. the petitioner has questioned iegaiity, ^e order dated 6-9-2004, Annexure-P/2 rity and Deputy Director, Panchayat and lereby the petitioner's appointment as 69 (1) of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram ten taken back and aiso the order dated ?r dismissing the appeal ofthe petitioner. lents, it has been mentioned that the ^d to notily a Secretary to any Panchayat |the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj authority is entitled to amend or alter or (^fter due enquiry and after giving fuii |ioner, notification by which the petitioner 3|en withdrawn by the prescribed authority fcara-10, it has been mentioned that the ^ Panchayat Karmi by Gram Panchayat 3t to consider the sen/ice condition of the XI-HC-78 3TI^T^)T^i<=b ^TT3T^T$b^li<+) TS[ ^ww^, w^\w\<o, fs<diy^< WMTg^t^ •^f^os^^^ 3ii^i 4si<*»('icli^6<<iy) 200 5^TTW:^f^T3TT^T -^- petitioner as Panchayat Karmi| decision. It is incorrect to say dated 6.9.2004 passed by the pr<{ Learned counsei for t| appointment on the post of F^ Annexure-P/3 the petitioner wa^ addition to that, he was dire| Learnedcounsel furtherargued the post of Panchayat Secretary | only grievance of the petitioner Panchayat Karmi. On the other hand, iearneld petitioner has been removed fr< not from the post of Panchayat K^ Having heard iearned co| record. In the petition, the petiti} of the order dated 6.9.2004 wl| from the post of Panchayat petitioner submitted that the rf remova! from the post of Pancha>| Therefore, on this coynt, The Madhya Pradesh High COL< Vs. State of M.P. and others M that:- "Petitjoner was ai Gram Panchayat Panchayat Secrete provisions of Secti Ghi^t<n41<i ^i^<nT^:fel:^'<Ri<^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T and for that Gram Panchayat to take |that respondent No.4 quashed the order ^scribed authority. )ie petitioner argued that as far as fanchayat Secretary is concerned, vide ^ appointed as Panchayat Karmi and in ^ted to work as Panchayat Secretary. (hat as far as the petitioner's removai from |s concerned, she is not challenging. The |s that he is not being allowed to work as counsel for respondents argued that the t>m the post of Panchayat Secretary and frrmi. '(jnsei for the parties, 1 have perused the t>ner has simpiy requested for quashment Uiereby the petitioner has been removed S^cretary. in-fact, learned counsel for the l^etitioner has no grievance against his j[at Secretary. do not find any substance in this petition. ^rt in the matter of Hariom Singh Rajput ^ported in 2002 (3) M.P.H.T. 541 has he!d ^pointed as Panchayat Karmi in - Additiona! Charge of |ry was given to him as per the [>n 69 (1) - Because of aliegations ^ XI-HC-78 3TT^T^)T^I<=b cT§TT3TT^T5b^i<=h ^ <d ^t NtNl^ Barve ,. ^ ^ K 3^ ^i^Kn^, ^Tft^^Ko, R<ni^y Nl*4dl s»»*iict» ^ 200 311^1 451th (l^^st^) ?^<TTW^?cTW^T '"-5— of misappropriatiotji, been withdrawn- charge in the bac|kdrop cannot be said to| Petitioner's subst^ntive Karmi is still protec|:ed Pan^hayat Similar is the situation petitioner on the post of Panch|ayat iearned counsel for the petitior|er petitioner from the post of devoid of merit. As far as question of c<|) Karmi is concemed, there is nothing being aliowed to work as Panch|ayat petition fiied by the petitioner, a^ granted. The writ petition is, hereby dismissed. Consequently, IA. No/ |here. The original appointment of the Karmi has not been canceiled and is not questioning the remova! of the Secretary, therefore, this petition is <=bi^f<n41Ti Hi^dT^'fe^'^^K ^3Tf^T3TT^?T , etc. the charge of Secretary has Held- Withdrawal of additional and the serious allegations have been arbitrary and iliegal - appointment as Panchayat - Petition dismissed." >ntention of the petitioner as Panchayat on record which shows that he is not Karmi. There is no averment in the such on this count also no relief can be therefore, iiabie to be dismissed and it is 18^2/2006 aiso stands disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^ '/s»