IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COUBT OF CHMATTISGABH AT BIL,4SPUR. WBXT PETITION N0. _IL2^_ OF 2004 A PETITIQNER / VERSUS RES'ONDENTS '^A^ ^.^'- . //^^^c' ^t^ . <^-'i <»°'^'s>-' ^^- ^y Prakash Cfaand Soni, son of Shri BaldevPrasad Soni. aged about 39 years, Panchayat Karmi (Sacheew) Gram Pancbayat Bagduaar, Vikash Khand Dhamdha, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.), resident of •village Bagdumar, Post Office Ahiy/ara Sub-Tahsil Ahiivara, Distts Durg ( C. G. ) . 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Panchayat & Ruler Development Department D.K.S. Bhawan U.c. Road, Baipur. u 2« Collector, Durg. 3. Gram Panchayat Bagdumar, Tah. Dhamdha, Dis'bt. Durg. Through—Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bagdumar, Tah. Dhamdha, District Durg. 1S 15 // ^^Q^i'lON UiMDER ARTICLE 225 OF OiNSTI'IUTlaN OF THE INDXA. '^^^ A~ ^ !r \../ XI-HC-22 sn^TqiT R-fi=b3TI^T ^iwgfStT !!.!i;-i3;siESS;!g35g^g 3ST -i|l<<l<-t<<, ®xnwis,fslcrliuy L^f '\\^-'-{l ol~l *<l*1p[TShH|ch a:n^r?RnwHf?a' 6.7.2005 Petitioner by Shri Ajay Respondents No 1 aud Advocate. Respondent No.3 by Sh]n Raabir Singh, Advocate. Heard. The present petitiou ha fhe Constitutkin of India b-^ tennination order dated 2.1.' The facts in nutsheU ol was appointed as Panchaj 8.11.1995. The services ofth^ challeiiges the im.pugned ordj fhe provisions of the Pan^ etii<<?n41-i iiticiTffiWt<Rt<-<ii< ^;3ri^IT3I1^T hrivastava, Advocate. 2 by Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, been filed under Ardcle 226 of the petitioner unpugniag the !003 and 3.1.2003 which have been passed ia coinpliance ^fh fhe resolution No. 1 passed by the Gram Sabha in its me^tm^ datedSO. 12.2002. fhe case are that fhe petitioner fat Karmi vide order dated petitioner was tcrminated vide order dated 2.1.2003 a^d 3.1.2003. The pctitioncr ;rs being illegal and contraiy to {hayat Service (DisGipline aad \ Appeal) Rules 1999 (iu t^rief 'the Rules 1999^. It is \ contended by leariied couus^l for fhe petitioner that Rule 7 (<f^^f^) ^ XI-HC-22 3s? ^ii'yici'ii, ^ifly'Ko, Ricii«y,< <^-v. \v' *<l*1^rSh*l|cn STl^T^iT R-fi*an^T sPTW(rf?tT 4^.'. /' sn^T^dRTCHfN' '2- of the Rules 1999 prescribe^ unposiag penally specified in Accordiag to Rule 5(b) of Rules disinissal fToui service. Leamefl cjause fiu-fher contends that fhe unpu^ned been passed wifhout formal enq}ury 7 of the Rules 1999 as such titie iUegal and deserves to be quash^d. Leamed coiuisel for fhe p|etitioner refers to a decMion of this Court passed in W.P.Ffo whereia in the identical facts df was aUowed and fhe terminationl Shri Ranbir Siagh learae^ No.3 submite that a show cause petitioner but the petitioner Ua^ refused to take thc notice aad not replied to the said noti.4e. Failure oa fhe part of fhe petitioner iu not receiving fhe nc^tice and by not filing reply to the show cause notice amount^ to sufl5cient compliaace of ehl'ilta'ifl-f t4|t|<-lT^'T6><r) <(«1<^1< ^arf^lTsn^T a formal enquity before (i») to (vi a) of Rule 5. 1999 major penalty includes counsel for the petitioner termination orders have iry as contemplated ia Rtde termination order is bad, ). 594/2003 on 15.3.2004 fhe case, the writ petition order was qus^hed. counsel for fhe Respondent notice was issued to fhe the provisitans ofRule 7 offhe R [iles, 1999. ('fliy®^) XI-HC-22 3:5T '<l|t|l<1'i|, S'Tflti'jS, Rjdiuy *ll*iwi sh*ll<*i ^o.P. U2-ztj o^ 1^"""""""""""TR; 3[I^T?iT f^ftesn^r aitiiti gfN B |;:::;gg&3N§SSU <^v ^ ~frr *' ail^i^Wiwdf??!' ^> Admittedly, fhere was under Rule 7 of the Rules 110 enquiiy as contemplated |1999 before dismissing fhe petitioner fix>iu service. In view of fhe judginent] passed by fhis Court in Vf Chaadra Patel Vs. State of Ch^iattisgarh identical facts were involved, petition deserves to be atlowed). atlowed and the termiaation order no order as to coste. Consequentty, I.A.NO. 4181/2004 staad disposed of. t>iti[ci<n-i 'wRrf^'fei^ ^aiRtTTsn^T and order dated 15.3.2004 f.P.No. 594/2003 (Prakash & others) whereia I am of fhe view? fhat this Accordnigly, fhe petition is is quashed. There shaU be 5145/2005 and I.A.No. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge (4t^^^)