JU^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2053 of 2003 Petitioner . Miirari Ram Saliii aged about 34 yeai's S/o, Late Shri Budhram Sahu, R/o Vffl. Kaldabaii, Post Mahx'um, Thana Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1, The State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretaiy, Deptt, of Panchayat Raipur C.G.) 2. The CoUector Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3, Chief Executive Officer Janpat Paachayat Chhuriya Distt Rajnaadgaou (C.G.) 4. Gmm Panchayat Through its Sarparich Gi^mi Paiichayat Kaldabari, Distt Rajuaadgaon (C,G.) Single Benefe: Honyble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for fhe petLtioner. Shri Ssjideep Dzibey, Govt. Advocate for fhe Respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Raubir Siagh Mai'has, Advocate for fhe Respoudent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (13thJaauaxy, 2006) The follo^vmg order offhe Court was passed by Satish K»Agssil&otri^ J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi ia fhe year 1995 m Graia Paachayat Kaldabari, District-Rajnandgaon (C,G,), The petitioner, fhereaAer, was appointed as Panchayat Secretary under fhe provisions of Section 69 (1) of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaj-aj Adhmiyaia, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as fhe 'Adhiniyain 1993^ by order dated 10.08.2000 (Annexzire P-1). Respondent No.4 Gram Paiichayat by its resolution dated 25.04.2003, wifhout issuing aiiy show cause uotice to tlie petitioner resolved to reniove thie petitioner froni the post of Paiichayat Karmi The petitioner was thereafter served a show cause notice 011 3,6.2003 (Annexnre P/3) by fhe Chief Executive Ofiicer, Jaapad Panchayat, Chhuriya, District-Rajnandgaon, i.e. (Respondent No. 3), as to why his ser^ices be not termiaated. The petitioner was directed to appear in a special nieetuig of Gram Sabha on 13.06.2003, The petitioner ffled his rcply on 6.06.2003 (Annexure P-5). The 3'espoudeiit No. 4 convened the special Graia Sabha ineetiag on 13.06.2003, and clecided to termiaate services of fhe petltioner withozit considering fhe reply of fhe petitioner to fhe show caiise notice. The petitioner has filed fh.is petition uuder Article 226/227 offhe Coustitution of India, prayiag that fhe order/resolution dated 13,06.2003 (Annexure P-6) be quashed/set aside aad the petitioner be pemiitted to work as Paiichayat Karmi/ Secretary. Shri, Parag Kotecha, learaed cozuisel appearing for fhe petitioner siibinite that Rule 7 of Panchayat Services (Disciptfcae & Appeal) Rules 1999 (hereiuafter referred to as "fhe Rziles 1999W), provides for a proper formal eiiqziiry by issziing show caiise notice for iraposition of Biajor penalties as prescribed under Riile 5 (b) of the Riiles 1999, It is further contended fhat the respoiidents have not coisiplied wifh fh.e statutoiy reqziirenient of Rule 7 of fhe Riiles 1999, before isixposing niajor penally by termiciatuig services of fhe petitioner by order/resolufion dated 13,06.2003. 6. Shd Ranbir Siagh Marhas, leamed coiuisel appearmg for fhe respondeut No. 3, i.e. The Chief Executive Officer, Jaupad Paachayat, Chhuriya, siibmitted that fhe petitioner had abstaiaed from attenduig fhe meeting of the Grain Sabha dated 25.04.2003, despite proper m.formatioii was given to hisEi. Leanied couiisel is not ixi a position to reply on the basis of the rettim fUed by the respondent No. 3 that whefher reply filed by the petitioner was considered or whether aay departmiental euquiry as contemplated in. Rzile 7 of fhe Rules 1999, had taken place. Mr. Saadeep Diibey, learaed counsel appearing for fhe respondents No. 1 & 2 supports and adopts the subniissions niade by respondent No, 3, In additiou, leamed counsel subniits fhat the petitioner ought to have avaUed altemative reinedy offitmg statatory appeal as conteniplated under Rule 15 ofthe Riiles 1999. I have heard leanied counsel for the parties and penised aU the docuinents appended to the writ petition as weU as to the retum flled by the respondents. This is a case where admittedly there is a gross violation of fhe prmciples of iiatural justice and statutory provisions of fhe Rziles, 1999. The show cause notice was issued to fhe petitioner and the petitioner had also fsled reply biit no enquiiy was conducted to fiud ozit facts as aUeged iii the show cause notice, There are serious aSlegations in the charge-sheet which renxamed unsubstaatiated and proved, as no enquiry was held, So far as availabiUty of altemative reniedy is concenied, it is nile of discretion, not of law. In fhe facts and circunistaiices of flie preseat case, wherein fhere is clear violation of statatory provisions of Rule 7 of the Riiles 1999, it is not necessary to disniiss this petition on the groiiud of avajlabaity of altemative reniedy, 8, Leanied counsel for flie petitioner with regard to fhe back wages szibniits that the petitioner was not gaiiiftiUy exnployed elsewherc and fh.is petition has been filed imsiiediately 011 25.07,2003. The petitioner has been restraio.ed from. workiiig and deprived from salary fhercof by iUegal coiiduct of fhe respoudeuts. The petitiosier is entitled to 100% back wages. Per Contra, leamed couiisel for the respondents subniit that the petitiouer is not entitled to aay back wages on flie prmciple of 'no work uo pay>. Admittedly the ser^ice of fhe petitioner was teroiuiated without foUowiag fhe principles of natural justice aad also without following fhe statiitoiy provisioiis ofthe Riiles 1999. The petitioner was restrahied by fhe conduct of flie respondents froni workiag ui service. Thiis, the principle of 'no work no pay' will iiot be appUcable. Iii tlie facts ofthe case, tiie petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages, 9, For the reasons stated above, the inipzigued order/resolution dated 13.06,2003 (Annexiire P-6) is quashed asid set-aside. The petition is aUowed. No oixler as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge