IGH GQURT QF CHHATTISGARH ' BILASPUR Qg H Aii : Hon’b!e-Shri Dhirendra Mishga & Hon’bie 3hri RN. Charucirakar, JJ. Writ Appeal N¢.39 of 201a t Gram Panchayat Hardi, Tamil: Janjgeer, ‘ Dist. Janjgeer Champa, Chhattisgam. Through thei;r Sarpanch ' State 0f Chf§attisgarh, Through their Prin‘gipai Secretary, anchayat and Gramin Vikas, .K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya D , Raipur, Chh‘attisgarh dditional Ce!!ect0r, throug oliector Dist: Janjgeer hampa, Chhattisgarh Sub ivisional Officer (Revenue), ' V Janjgeer, dist Janjgeer Champa, ' Chhattiegarh. ' Engineer anjgeer 1 ‘ ,' "91; Respdnd‘ent Pubuc Heatth Akaiiara,- V dist; ' Champa, ChhattiSgar Raikumar I Slo. '8hri Bhukhi Ram Sahib; aged aboUt 4 years, R/o. Viiiage Herdi, Ta'nsii Janjgeer, Dist, Janjgeer Champa, C-hhatiisgarh (Petitioner) a! uls 211 of Ghhattisnarh Hinh Gourt nea! to Division en not, 2066. _ i 5p --—+\- ' , Present: _ ‘Shri Raj Kama! Singh counselifor the appeilant. I 'Shri Sumesh Bajai, Govt. Advonate for the State. Shri Sanjayf Agrawai, eounsei for reerioncie’nt No..4 VoiéAL‘oRDER .(1. 1 93.201. 1.) P s A h C C D : ; J h 4 e An Bcm 5 Writ p‘etition med by respondent No.5 for washing the impugned order iof Annexure—P!1,- passed by Gram Panchayat, Hardi, termineting him from the pest of Panchayat Ka‘rmi and Annexure-P/2 passed by Sub Divisionai Officer, Janigir rejeeting his appea' anerrmi the o eer of his termination and nrder ef A}. nxure—Pl3 passed by Additiena! Collector, Jahjgir Champa confirmihg the aforesaid orders K of termination of the petitioner from the post of Panohayat Karmi; has been allowed by ie‘arned Singie Judge by the impugned order and his order of termination a ed 31 01 2001 has been quashed and he has been heid entitled for 30% back Wages, however, liberty has been reserved to the Gram Panchayat to initiate de novo enquiry on the allegediirregularitles. Shri Ra} Kama! Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that termination of respondent No.5 has been set aside and quashed only no the ground that the same has been passed Without fntlowmo the proxliSions of Rule 7 of the M P Panchayat Sen/ice iscipline and Appeal) Rules, 1.999 (for brevity ‘the Rules of 19Q9’), without following the principles of natural iustice and without considering the reply submitted by him tothe show-cause notice, which is not permissible particularly when the order of terrninatmn is of nehal in nature Visitrnn With ciVil consequences. He further submits that respondent No.5, in his reply to the show-cause notice made false allegation against Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in a most indisciplined manner and in View of the above, the Panchayat in its meeting dated 16.01.2900, resolved to issue‘him 3 days show-cause not! as to why he should not be'remove‘d from theost However the respondent did nnt reniy .. i i / , i p t0 subsequent notices and final!y the Panchayat resoived to remove him from the post and the resoiution of the Panohayat was subse‘quenth; appraved by Gram Sabha. Re$pondent No.5 was a!so dwectnd *0 2p ar before Gram Sabha, however, he remained ahsenr l On the other hand learned codnsel for the respondent wnuH submit that reply to the show-cause notice was received In the office of Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Hardi on 07;01.20Q1 however the Papchayat removed the appeilanf \Mlfh a frndlng *hat respondent No 5 did ner fie any reply to the Show reuse notrce rssued by the Gram Panchayat and order of termination has been passed without conducting any enquiry. Learned Single Judoe, oonsrdermg theee facts, aiiowed the writ petitionif reserving iiberty totthe Gram Panchayat to initiate de nova ennuiryi “i I on the alieged irreguiarities. Heard-ibarned counsel for the parties. Perueed the pteadings of the respective narties' and nments appended With the pleadings ? Learned Qmnie Judge has duashed the order of termination of respondent Nos. only on the ground that the Panchayat has passed the impugned orde. without foiiowing the mandatory provisions of the ruies 1999 and withoutiobserving the principles of naturai iustice. i From the pieadings of the respective parties and from the documents . available on record, it‘i i a h he appellant repiled to the show cause notice whiohwad duly receivedin the office of Secretary, Gram . Panohay..., however, the order of termination has been passed without: cOmpieting the provisions of Rules 7. 'of Ruies 1.999 with mu \ \ perlelfse finding that the respondentV No.5‘did . i not rep!y to ‘ the v show t i V,( . l tn these citcumstanceg, we find no substance in the writ appeal ‘ i warranting . . interference . in the . impugned Greer. i The appeal j being . devoid 9f any substance deserves to be and is aecordingiy dismissed. No erder aste eests. ' , r ~ ‘ i Sd/— IN, l. jg ' V 5d]- I, i‘ QIRIANGANATH CHANDRAKAR i., i 1r Dhirendra Mishlfar i‘ Judge , Vi i 2W