^(f0\^- i.5' ^ II- 1:; i.u IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDlCXCURE AT BII.ASPUR( CHHATTISGARH) WRFT PETITION N0. 2.2-36 QF 2003 ^ '• .^ . ' ^'•^ PETITXONEft ..^/ : PETITXONEft ^:,. ^ys/' ^y^ ../""^^Qy' .^y y ^ Kalyan Slngh,son o£ Xialman Patel, aged about 45 years, Panchayat Secretary,(removed) Gram Pancbayat Dhaurabhatha, Bleck SarangaE'h,District-Raigarh,(C.G, V E R S U S KESPONDEiSH'S ^ : l?l. State of Chhattlsgarh,through» Secrefeary, Panchayat and Welf are Department, D.K.s.Building»HantFalay» Raipur» Distrtet-Raipur»(C.G.) ;/t~2» Collector, Ralgarh» Distrlct-Raigarht(C.G.) » Sub Divisional Officer,(Revenue) '' ' SaranqarhtDistrict-Raiqarh,(C.G.) 4^jlanpad Panchayat,sarangarhithrough \ j; i Chief Executive_j3£ficer»JanpadPanch|y|^ Sarangarh,Distriet-Rai.garh«(C.G.) ] I" : : 5. Gram Panchayat.Dhaurabhathatthrough Sarpanch of Gram panehayat Dhaurabhakha,Tehsil-Sarangarh, District-Raigarh,(C.G.) |:|i:- ?27 WRIT PETCTION UNDER ARTIO.iES 226/^'27 OP THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-22 3^ •<11'!)|<'1<<, ©Tfld'IS,is|diy^< (~s~< 3TT^?T Hmcfi shtrai ;?i "^srai ^^.^.M.^^i 2ff0 Rre^; sn^rw f^Ttean^r stiiitittlsn :S::.i'll,ltilti-lU.».I ail^KWIWHfScT 2.S.200S Ar ofrespond|ent tte Shri B.D. Guru, counselfitr Shri G.K. Bcriwal, Dy, A<|v. No.l to3, None oa behalf i Heard leanied counsel fo|r inatter, Thc pcti.tioncr's case is Secretary (Paacihayat Karmil ofl 14.3.2000 tlie Gram Sabha p4s reinoval ofthe petitiotier from. on the said i^solutiori the pctitioner vidc Aanexuic P-5 & fl'om fhe post of Panchayat 5eci|( 16.4.2000 Gram Sabha pursuant to that the SDO recoi^.in post of Secrefary through Cliiei) rcport datcd 3.5.2000 (AnacxitTC dated 6.6.2000 (Annexure P-: appoiatinent of the petitioner s|s orderfhe petitioner pneferred ao| Division, Bilaspur, who ailow^< rcinaiidcd thc case to fhc CoUet Coltector agam vide order dated| petitioner's case. Furfher case passed by fhe Gram Sabha is reGbmitlended »l<<fa<(l-t*<11i"]T^'teA<Rl+dK ^sff^iTan^r fhe petitioner. . Gencral for fhe State /rcspondcnt ,No.4 & 5. fhe parties for fiiial disposal of the that hc was workiiig as Panchayat Grain Panchavat Dhaurabhata. On issed a Resolution No.l resolvmg for post. of Paachayat Secretai5r. Based tub Divisional Officer nitiinated fhe » |P-6 rcgarditig rcinoval of fhc pcti.tioner fctarv. Thereafter, vide resolution-dated reaioval ofthe petitioner and ia tjuended rexuoval of petitioner from. the Executive Officer to the CoUector vide P-7) and the CoUector vidc oidcr caaceUed fhe notifieation regardins Panchayat Kanni. Agamst the said appeal to fhe Coinmissioner, Bflaspur ^d the fappeal of the petitioner aad ;tor vidc Anncxiirc P-8. Howcver, fhc 128.4.2003 (Aanexure P-1) rejected the |of the petitioner is that the n'solution UlesEal aad arbitrarv as no notice was XI-HC-22 sn^rsTgWHf^r —^, •fll^Tqn' ls-<i<ti3I1^T sh*<i<* •yfed' 3^ S[WRTO, ditn^id, f^rray 3ii^i 4ach ^ W}: 200 fe^ '+wfd^ HWclTffte^Tf^RK ^3t^I-3fI^T given. to tfae petitioQer regardii|Lg nieetiug of Gram. Sabha aud even. ia the notice catting for iaeetu|ig of Gram Sabha was also iUegal. Ultunately, thc petitioner pi^yed for quastuaent of Qic itnpugncd orders aanexure P-1 &, P-2 an^. also reuloval ofthe petitioner from the post of Pancfaayat Secretary. Retxim. has beea filed i|>n belialf of respondents No. 1 to 3 in. which it has been nientioaed Ithat poiats raised before the autlioritv have bccn considcrcd aud fh^ pctitioncr bas lailcd to poiat out tliat how the order is perverse. It ta^s beeii mentioned thatvide order-dated 6.6.2000 the CoUeetor ha.s aojt caacelled fhe:declarauoa as Paacbayat Kanni, but has cancelled the|order regarding the appointment of (he petitiouer as Secretaiy of (^ram Paiichayat. It has further beea sicntioncd fhat order of rei^oval of thc petitioiier has never been challenged and this petition t|as been filed after a iapse of tliree years, fherefore, the petition of tlie i|ietitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. It is an adinitted positjon that the petitioiier has been reiaoved Iroin thc post of Paacliayat ^ccictary on tfac basis ofrcsolution dated 14.3.2000 passed toy Oram jSabha ia whrch certaia allegations were leveUed agaiast the petition^r regardiug taldng bn'be, misusing the authority and di-awing me 4moTU:lt froia fhe baak uiider the forged signatures of fhe fhen Sarp4nch. It is also adaaitted fact fhat beiaj tfac Panchayat Karmi, thc p^titioncr's scrviccs wcre govcnicd by the M.P, / C.G. Paachayat Servlc|e (Disciplme &Appeal) Rules, 1999 wliicb came into force w.e.f. 22,6.11999 a&d Claiise (3) of Ri.de 1 of Part-} envisages fhat "the ndes ^hall apply to all persons CTnployed in "» XI-HC-22 3^''<ii<ii<i<i, siTn^'is, fcidi'yy 3i|^| <^ach *<i*idi sniich """"""""""•^ 200 Ri'd'A'"""""""" sn^T^iT R-fi+3TI^T shX gf?cT <%» sii^i ^•wiwfffsn -^- Grton connedion wiih ihe affairs ofZit the Grcun Panfduiyats and disch\ Janpwl Panchayats and the these rules shall applyto officei areposted under the Panchayat^ to the Panchayais under Sec(ion| Therefore, in view of th^ pctitioncr wcre go'vcnicd by prescribes about tlie penalties| Rule 5(a) defines 'miiior penalti] The procedure for uaposiiig ins Rule 7which reads as uiider aio order, vnposing on a any of the pena.tties speaj shallbe passed excepi aft as nwy be, in fhe manner}. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 ctiarges on ihe basis of a??e) cftarges, along with statemeni Pcmchayai Servics and also reqt be spedfied aivritten statemeni dssires to be haccrd in persor{ receipt of the written statemeni[ rwt received u'fthin the iime himself enquire into sudi of th^ an Rnqiiiry Offirsr ta halii thfi\ t]i'i<Tci<n-i*i]Hi-iT^'fsc3'<Rit<ii<. ^isri^iT.sn^r i|a Pcmchayats, Janpctd Panchayais cind ^irging thefunctions qfZtla Panchayats, Pan.chftyats provided ihat nothing in i|s cmd sen-'ants of the state seivice who t- under Seciion 69 or are on 'lone seniice \71 ofihsAct" above provision, ihe services of fhe llhesc rulcs.. Rule ~5 of Rules 1999 to be imposed on Panchavat Karmi. "s'. Rute 5(b) defines 'major penalties'. jjor penalties has been incorpoiated ia ifieTtiberof the PanchayalServifx, fiedin dause (iv) to (via) ofrute S (er aformal inquiry is held asfar hereinafler prowded." ejivis^es regarding 'framing of definits ]ffations dnd shall GOtriinunicate such ^f the allegatwns, to the niember of the reqluire to subm.it, wilhin sudi fame as may .o/ defence and also to state ivhether he Rule 4 further envisaged that on of defence or if any such sfatenwnt is specified, ihe disdplinary duthority may charges as are not admitted or aopoint inqitini an<i friniiard to him h»s report,. ^z^^^^ ..,-w«.».*tA*-....^-- XI-HC-22 ^\ 3^ -^WM^, W^WIG, Rlclltiy 3T1^?T '•f^fi iiiwi sh*irai • -: •,4 ' "^ V^ 200 ft^ SD^T^T R-ii+sn^r sfttfro'ufsa 3V ^w!n SflS-!16«IIWBf^T thfet discipl(nary provisipns pub-rule (7) further envisages \Bnquiry Officer shall prepare -, a \findings on each ofthe charges Iper suh-rule (10) the Irepresentation, u aiiy, made by |n.otice aad determine the peiialt}) pass appropriate order pn the ca^ Noiic of thc abovc 'ase, therefore, the impugned 01 [score only, as has been held b\t [Chandra Patel Vs. State of Clilt Chliattisgarli Law Tuaes 142. !n thc rcszilt, tlie pctition [orders are quashcd and respo) Ipetltioner tn servlce. Coasequently, aU fhe pend^ Certified copy as per rules, 'af the concilision of ihe inquiry, ihe report of the inquiry, reoording his {ogether Wiih reasons therefore and as authoritv sfaaB considcr the |he person, charged in response to the f, if any, should be iiaposed and shaU ie, <ni<irci4l-i *iii(iTfftecftiRt«i< ^sri^iTsn^r havc bccn coniplied with iii this (ders are Uable to be quashed on this fhls Court m the matter of Prakash ^attisgarh & others reported in 2004 [^fthc petifioncr is aUowed, iinpugncd bdents are directed to reuistate the png applications staad disposed of. Sd/. '-•C.BHADOO Judge' M'