.J/, 'i!?-'"" BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR C.G. In the Matter of W.P.No. 2003 PETITIONER %?&•• .^•^&^ ^yy" .a^ i§ 9i "I^' o L^ ^ 3) ^ 4) ^ 5) Heeralal Dhoba, aged about 32 y^ars, son of Shri Surat Ram (Dhoba, resident of village Baghadol, Development Block Pusuar, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Versus ) State of Chhattisgarh, through Principle Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (CG) Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, RaigarU (C.G.) Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh Gram Panchayat Baghadola, THFough^ Sarpanch village Baghdola, Development block Pusuar, Distt. Raiganh (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE ^2!6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND /OR ANY OTHER COMMAND OF LIKE NATURE XE-HC—78 ??i 371 t?':?R; WAJi wfe 'FJT'^TWTO^? i ^pTI^fq'^ 'g?fl|'^{.Ts'^ 'fsR^flT77 M±........^.^\... 'S'R •a:ii<?i '^•ip^ ('••W^T^gE!) 'IW^tBTiasra! ^T4'^STR 'R'Fr?Ti'?? 1'§'i~.^TT!"^ BT STf^q 5^Tr^;E1 01/02/2005: - Shri Roop Naik, learned counsil for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, learned Dy|. G.A., for the State/respondents 1.3and4. Shri Alok Bakshi learned counsjel for respondent No.2. Shri A.N. Bhakta learned counsjel for respondent No.5. Heard finally with the consen^ of the counsel appearing for the respective parties. i 1 The petitioner has challenged Ithe legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 11/02/2003 paised by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Baghadol by which on thp basis of the resolution of Gram Sabha the petitioner was removed fr<^m the post of Panchayat Karmi of the said Gram Panchayat. | The case of the petitioner is th^t he was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi and thereafter |Secretary of Gram Panchayat j Baghadol in accordance with the ^rovisions of Section 69 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram SwarajlAdhiniyam, 1993 (tor short the Adhiniyam). The date of appointm4nt is 04/11/1995. A copy of the appointment letter is filed as Annexure-P/2. Learned counsel appearing ftr frie petitioner submits that the aforesaid removal was on the basis jaf resolution dated 01/01/2003 by the Gram Panchayat. The resoluti<|>n was illegal for the reason that there had been no clear notice of tHe said agenda to the members of the Gram Panchayat. Against the sajd resolution, the petitioner filed an XI-HC—78 A-'I.C^, c? ^•n K m sw?] w^; B") ^IPff^jT'^ <iT^ "-sRT^ra, '»=TT;;-lTTe, UcTra1 .^±.........^\. 00'2> V^Sf; (-TStHTSPgS) ???iTO: 'S'WS SKf. ^ °'' i '^^"i'''?T4FT '^T^T'f ~^ 'fs^T '?r?K:^^' c^ 3:s'r?l''j? 3TT^r; application under Section 91 of the Adhiniyam before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer v|de its order dated 20/21-01-2003 stayed the operation ofthe resolution jdated 01/01/2003till the disposal of the appeal. In fact, the aforesaid japplication filed by the petitioner was treated as an appeal by the Subj Divisional Officer. A copy of the stay order passed by the Sub Divisi^nal OfRcer is filed as Annexure- P/3. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the aforesaid order of stay was served upon Sarpanch |of the Gram Panchayat, Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchaya^ and other concerned persons. Learned counsel further submits thatjan endorsement to this effect has also been made in the said order. Le^arned counsel draws the attention of this Court towards the order (Arjinexure-P/8) according to which, j another resolution of removal of the fietitioner was passed by fhe Gram Sabha on 27/01/2003. He further sutfmits that in factthis resolution has been passed even after gathering kn^iwledge about passing of the stay order by the Sub Divisional Officer by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. He submits that the resolution is in contravention of the order of stay granted in favour of the petitioner. Besides above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the resolution for removal of the petitioner is a direct action that is even without giving any opportunity of being heard to him. He submits that according to the schemri applicable in cases of Panchayat Karmi a show cause notice was required to be given and further submits that since the petitioner was holding the post of Secretary, a '/ /f: XI-HC—7S <;-cc| ^^|<^-q^ ^Ti|^l'l|t3'. r®M-RTU^ / t' ^ .\^:1:.....\^1. -a=< 21) sfWTs ~:rw (''•T3^^''3) s^? ^ 'TS^^ 1 'WT^T W1^^ ·re.Tw isR'g aire' -'?>- ^N?i'ai';T^T•iit-l?1i •i.;'^;' ^•3?Rpi3>li^^] notice under Rule 7 of the M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appea!) Rules, 1999 was not given te him and the procedure iaid down under Rule 7 was also not follcwed in jcase of fhe petitioner. 1 Return on behalf of the StaN and also on behalf of the other respondents have been filed. Neithej' learned counse! for the State nor counse! appearing for other respond^nts could point out any provision in support of the action of the Gram |Sabha or the Gram Panchayat on the basis of which a person working ^s a Secretary/Panchayat Karmi of a Panchayat could have been remov^d even without serving a notice of show cause or even without affordingj any opportunity of being heard to him. I Since the order of remova! <?? the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary has be?n directly passed by the Gram Sabha and also by the concerned I authorities without affording any opportunity of being heard to him and even without issuing notice to the petitioner, the order is bad in law and the same deserves to be set aside by this Court. An opportunity of being heard is a basic principle of law, as any person working on a posf cannot be removed without giving atleast a chance to him for explaining|the situation on the basis of which a remova! has been proposed. Thej-e is clear viotation of the scheme as wetl as the rules referred to abov^ and also there is violation of the fundamental principles of natura! jusiice, hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11-2-2003 (Annexure-P/1) and the resolution dated 27-1-2003 (Annexure-P/8) are hereby quashed. ;U-HL;—1\ Wian?T'SSWW S^? ^TRRW, 'i?^?Fre, fe ..^.;.?;.......\5'^. 1 Z! )3> Braj^sh ^raife^i 'WR'f'? TC^t tfsi^Tt ^? 3tRrq STit!?; Learned counsel appearing f<^r the petitioner atso submits that during pendency of the instant writ rtetition, the^Sub Divisional OfRcer has dismissed the appeal filed again^the first resolution ofthe removal vide its order dated 28-8-2003. Mi amendment to this effect has already been incorporated in the petition. He has prayed for quashing of the order of Sub Divisional Officeii The Sub Divisional Officer had dismissed the appeal on the grcjund that the appeals are not maintainable against the resolution of removal of a Secretary/Panchyat Karmi from his post. This aspect of |the matter is also considered. In ' fact, before the earlier resolution al^o there is no compliance of the provisions of the scheme as well as {>f the rules referred to above and this resolution and the orders passed|in the appeal also deserves to be quashed. Consequently, the order jdated 28-3-2003 (Annexure-P/9) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer fand the eartier resolution dated 1 - (Bt& a- 1-2003 in pursuance of which anj appeal was preferred, fe also quashed. In the result the petition stands pllowed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ..;- ,/A -H .^^