c s<loul IN^THE HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^" Writ Petition N0. /^/S /2006 PETITIONER ^ /•^s ^^/ ^^' ...••"" ^oy ••*' «i-<-'<TAl--" ^yy t^ v./' RESPONDENTS ^ fco / ^l ^. ~5ii 0' &J ^ a? ±^ 0 ^/ /z /•"3 / Brajesh Kumar Singh Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Barganwa, Aged about 32 years, S/o Kamta Prasad Singh, R/o Village Barganwa, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through : Director Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Additional Collector Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) Durga Choubey S/o Ram Narayan Choubey, Panchayat Karmi, Village Panchayat Barganwa, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 588 J''- a.^- ':^.<ah?h--^-.. -s-i! '' --'^=^itK[^'t isR^^ -:_! WRIT PETITION U/A 266/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETIT10NER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1215 of 2006 Petitioner Brajesh Kuinar Singh Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotriJ.) Shri D. N. Prajapati, Advocate for fhe petitioner, Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3. None for the respondent No.4. Ms Anju Ahuja, Advocate for the respondent No.5. O RD E R (Oralt (Passed on fhis 16th day of Septeiaber, 2009) Heard. The present petition, ffled under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Additional Collector, Sarguja, Anibikapur, District - Saiyija in Revenue Revision Case No. 02/A-89/2005-2006. Brief facts, m. uutsheU, are fhat the respondent No.5 (Dui^ Choubey) was workiug on fhe post of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Paachayat - Bargaawa, Jaapad Panchayat - Ainbikapur, District - Saryija. In regard to the work aad conduct of the respondent No.5 a coinplauit was made by soiae of the vill^ers on 22.2.2005 (Armexure P/2 aad P/3). Thereafter, a notice was issued to the respondent No.5 on 22.2.2005 (Amiexure P/4) that a special meetmg of the Gram Sabha wa^ called on 24.2.2005 to consider the aUegation inade in the complamt and to reraove the respondent No.5 iroiu the postofPnachayat Kanni. By resolution dated 24.2.2005 (Aanexure P/5) the services of the respondent No.5 was terminated. Beiag aggrieved, fhe respondent No.5 fited aii appeal before the Sub Dwisional Officer (Revenue), Ambikapur, which was disinissed by order dated 8.11.2005 (Annexure P/7) on the ground of delay and laches. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 preferred a revision, wliich was aUowed by the Additional CoUector, Saiyija, Ambikapur by order dated 24.2.2006 (Aimexure P/l) on the ground that admittedly, fhe statutoiy provisions of Rule 7 of fhe Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (DiscipUne and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules, 1999') were not fonowed. The petitioner (Brajesh Kumar Singh), Sarpaach of the Qram Paachayat Barganwa hgs filed this petition questioning fhe legality aud vaUdity ofthe order dated 24.2.2006. Shn D. N. Prajapati, leanied counscl appearing for fhe petitioucr submits since the appeal preferred by fhe respondent No.5 was dismissed by fhe Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambikapur on the ground of delay aad laches, in aay case the Additional CoUector should have remaaded the matter to the Sub Divisional OfiRcer for deciding the matter on nierits, The reUefgranted to the respondent No.5 by the Additional CoUector, Saiyija is beyoad the reliefprayed for in the iaem.0 ofrevision. Shri P. K. Bhaditd, learaed counsel appearing for fhe respondents No. 1 to 3/State aad Ms Anju Ahuja, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondent No.5 supports the order dated 24.2.2006 (Aruiexure P/1). Leamed couasel would submit fhat siace fhe mandatoiy, statutoiy provisions of Rule 7 of fhe Rules, 1999 were not foUowed before reinoving the respondent No.5 from fhe post ofPancliayat Kanni, fhe impugned resolution, passed by fhe Gram Sabha was Ulegal and bad on the ground that tbe petitioiuer was not aEForded aay opportuiiity of hearing, the order impugned passed by the Additional CoUector, Sarguja, Ambikapur is just and proper. 6. In support of her subinissions leanied counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 cited a decision of fhis Coiut in. the niatter of Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. 85 others1, which was reUed on iu Anjordas Vs. State of Chhattisgprh & otheis2 . 7. I have heard leanied counsel appearing for fhe parties aud perused the docuiuents appended thereto. 8. Rule 7 of fhe Rules, 1999 provides for procedure before terminatiag service of a member of Paochayat. In fhe instant case, it is apparent that the said provisions were not foUowed, no definite chai^es were firaaied and the respondent No.5 was not served with the articles of chai^es before holdmg an enquiry, leading to termination of fhe respondent No.5 fbom his services aud in fact neither the show cause notice was issued nor the enquiry was held. The termination was passed on fhe basis of the resolution of the Gram Sabha in its ineetmg dated 24.2.2005. The same could not have been passed wifhout foUowiiig the provisions oflaw, prescnbed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules 1999. 9. Havmg heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties aad having perused fhe pleadings aad docum.ent appended fhereto, it 2 {2006(2) C.G.L.J. 186} 2 {2008 (III) MPJR-CG 110} ^ '"•"' -^ 10. 11. is evident ftiat titie impugned termination order was passed wifhout foUowiug the proper procedure of law, as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. The procedure for holding an enquiry is prescribed uiider Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 for imposition of inajor pexially. Hence, fhe termination is bad and vitiated on the ground of non-coinpliance of fhe slatutoiy provisions aud denial of the principles of natural justice. It amounts to iafi'actiou of not oiily fhe provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but also fhe provisions of Article 311(2) of fhe Constitution of India. The order was ui fact penal ia nature, having civil consequences aud as such compliance of the elaborate provisions, as enshrmed ia Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was xnandatoiy ia fhe present case. (See fhe case of Dhalurani Kosaria aud Anjordas (supra) }. In view of the foregoing, I do not fiad aad justificatk)n, warrautuig interference with fhe impugaed order dated 24.2.2006 (Aimexure P/l), settiag aside the order dated 8.11.2005 (Aanexure P/7), passed by fhe Sub Divisional Ofiicer (Revenue), Ambikapur as weU as the order of reinoval dated 24.2.2005 (Aimexure P/5), passed by the Gram Sabha. The contentiou of Shri Prajapati, learaed counsel fhat the revisioa before the Additional CoUector, Suiyija, Ambikapur, was against the refusal of fhe condonation of delay ia filmg fhe appeal before fhe Sub Divisional Officer,Aiubikapur and as such, the Court below could not have examined the case on nierits. After condoiung fhe delay, the Court of Additional CoBector, beiag the revisional authority, niay consider the facts ofthe case. 12. 13. 14. Thakur It is not necessary iu all cases to reinand back fhe matter to the first authority for consideration on facts. Thus, fhc contention of leamed couiisel is rejected. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 would submit that by virtue of fhe interiin order, passed by this Court on 17.4.2006, the effect and operation of fhe order dated 24.2.2006 (Aitaexure P/l) was stayed. Thus, the respoudent No.5 may be aUowed back wages. Ou the question of back wages, no fouudation has been lald to establish the fact fhatwhether fhe respondent No.5 was gainfuUy employed elsewhere or not during this period. Even otherwise, heeping iu view fhat the tertauiation order has been vitiated not on inerit but on account of non-coinpliance of the statutory provisions before termuiating the services of the respondent No.5, 30% back w^es would be sufficient ia fhe taterest of justiee. With fhe above direction, fhe writ petition is dismissed, No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge