<A.\?: ^ fii i tffi WritPefitionNb.t656Q<ll04 CORAM: Hon'blfrShri S.R.Nayalt, ChW AisUce & Hori'bl&ShnD.liOest'unukh,^., Petttioner Resoondents RoOplalNa^k,agedabOtrt36y^rs,S/o ShriftamKTOhNaysd&Rto^fiUsQeBad^ttn Chaittti^, ; ):^>st^^^ M DDngargaon, Distt. REunandgaon (C.G.) Versus. 1. Th& State of Ghhatfegarh, Through SecTe^ary, Panchayat swi^^^ff W De|MrtnMrt^©.lfeS. aM'an,RaiRui'.; 2. Sacwtaiy, ^•Kttayat s^ ^ R^ i[%W(6gm^i!g@|^r(in8R^^aii^®e.^ 3. TheGolte(S|oi',^istt^Rinani|BMij;|®.<lll( 4. Deputy ESrec^ PanchiwaC antll Social V^et^rs, Diait. Rsytandga00- l ? 5. Ghj^BreciAhre Qfflcw; Janp^ l^(»igaiWon,Distt;Rajnan<^a()n. i ShriPOTagKotecha.Goyiisel^onthepelitioner. Shri UUffljrsh Vemia, Dy; Gwt. ^tvocate (br the State. Shri Ramkrishna Sharifia.Cwinset Iw resporKlentN>.5t (ps^anii.s'T'.zooe^.' . •; , .., The folkwing oral o(£ieFQfUi€!=jCourtwas|assedbyS.R.NAYAK, C.J. On a reference mad^jby St|t||Safi^jK. ^nfhoW, Aj. jttus wtt p^ti<m ts ptaced befc^ ussfW^t^i^^ dedsion-malang. | i '^ • •' '••' '•^•^; .' •• ••'. • '.: .'.•.•..••': i: '•''• .'', .•' •.''^,:':':' " '.••••'•• :" .'\' "•'••••.''• •••'.'. ..••'.:" .i' • ' 2. The reference is macfS m-t^^Ht^»(ti<>fittii'ftdl<)Wingfa<^:jj ThepelM6n®rwas|a|^3||!|!(|||;®ai^liayat^i^ WhBe :working'^'such^|^UK<B!BwlaW<^i^l^^^A81j|'iW^ i 3sa0n1ras l^nofflleiie:;^llllli petitionerf; ^ss' Se<?^i^ljS^ ^;8^n|W®t'E^El^i^>1JCT^»»affijfS|J3|i:1 .i;!l::-.j-i3.!!:!;i ?w i.E w <s? 18.06.1997. asprovided under SecUon 69 of ttie ChhatUsgarh Panchayat Ra( Adhlniyam, 1993 (for short the "Adhiniyam"). White the peWoner was servingasSeeretaryofGramPanchavatBaclgaonCharfchata.ttleDistriGt Collector, RajnandgaQn received a complaint alleging ftiat the petitioner has committed certain serious irregularities in maintainiiig tnuster rotts. That led to issuance of a show-causenotfeedated 9.10.2001 markedas Annexure P/2 to ttie p^ttioner calBng for his e^lanation. TTie^^etitioner SubmitedhisFeplydated 12.10.2001 maFkedasAnnexurePfftothe show-cause notice. Tfte Coltector, Rainandgaon,not tejng sa^e^wBh the reply ol' the peffloner. jssyi3d <^ Annexure Pf4 withdrawfng he orcfer dafed •t8;6s't897. Thei|jp©E^oher feeling aggrieved by the above order of the Collector, RajnaaEtoaon District.dated 7.11.2001 t>referred a eal under Secflon 9 of the Adhini^hr ^!llie?<)ommjS!sronier, Reveriue ©Msion,Reupur. jThe said appeal was (lismj^etf by tti^ Gommisgoner by order datect 22.1J1.20I02. Thep^ffione^ t^ing aggriewcl l^fthe above ordere of the So|(e|M>r and •^ i'';".'; •":: theOommi^icinerpreferr^ailw^ontofteSecreta RuralDevelopmentOeparttfiei^tiffie^^nd,t^on<tenth^in^^^ wentinvairii'Hence,thiswrifepe<ition.^ 3; ^W^ thfs ma^i^trtsMPi^ N^W bsftw Srt^ l^ Agrahotri,; jj», Nis l.orelshipsScl^utlii^ttre^^ 6f the tORtttion ?of L.C.^Bhad<^,y;in:eralHi|lMiUiSil^^Statei^ ^:'C::.; K;':^-t:!'if'K%IIS8WS?BfflfiH ;,0)thS^'^||^^^2^^|lli||^||^||ill>5S^:|j^tlt^ : ":^i:"sswi%iiw^iT-nr"J:'^,.'^i:PT"ff'r'^ :;to;a.l.a(geriBencti.'f ^:'; •:~':'K:^ rim ) ;';E s IK 4. We have heard leamed oounsel for the pistiConer. It wasi contended ly teamed counsel for ttie petitfoner thfat leametf referring Judge has lost sighf of the fact that in terms of ttie pro^iso to sub-rute (?) of Rulel oftheM.P. PanGhayatServfce(@isGfplineandAppeaORutes, 1999 (for short thej Rufe'), the Rules haw np applicattori only to ttidse offjcers andservantsoftheStatBSehflce who are posted to the Senrfce of the Panchayate uncfer Sectfon 69 of fteAdhiniyam or are on loan service tothe Panchayats under Section 71 ofthe Adhlniyam. 5. It is approprtate to flrst notlce jthestatutofy provistpns wliksh tiavel bearing of the deciston-maldng. Sub^ute ^)of Rute 1 ofthe Rutes reads asfoflows: ^E)«^^9theCT^pFowl^gby6rsunderth^ applytoattpet^nseRfploye^iiftaGQnn^ Zila Panchayats. Janpad f'ariChasRrts and the G^m\ Pancha^ite arid dischariging the ftinctiQns <rf Zflal F'arwMayErt, Janpaetand Gram Panchayat^ Prowled that nothing ig ftiese rutes shall apply to oflicers and »rvarte of the S^servk»who are pos^ under the fanchayats underSection 69 orare on hMie serwce tottiepanchayatsunderseG8on?71offlieAct." Rele^nt poiliQn <rf sub-seetion i(1) of Sectlon 89 of the Adttinj^sim readsasunder: "69. Atipojntment ofSe^retaiy and Chief ExiecuBve Offlcer~<1) Th^St^Goveremerttor^'presGrito^ayttw^ mayappomtaSwretarytera^raWF^ricli8yatOT|:grc^of^^ or mote^GramJ'anchayats: ' i III 1 H Vlli^ i.ai. i^ M t sm (- 4 Section71ofttieAdhiniyamrea<teasunder: "71. DeputaUon of Goverament senrant.- Tde State Govemment may depute to ttie sefvice 6f the Fjancha'^rt such of tis serwEftits as ft consktere neGessary. | The seryice condltions of such deputed servante shall be such as may be prescribed.l^theSteiteGovemn'ientlTOm^imetofime." It is nobody's case that the petitkiner WEsappointed toy the QisWct Colleetor, Rajnandgaon on 18.6.1997 astheSecretaiyofGram PanchayatBa<taaoitCharbhatawhjtehewasintheserviceof,tti&^a(e. On the other hand. it is the common case of att that ttie p^titipiie^ wras initially appointed as Panchayat l^irmt of Gram PancHa^rt SaclgaOri Charbhataon 12.11.1995andwhenservjngassuch.tewasappoini^tas S^etaty oftlwsaldGram Panchayat^^eGollector,^^ provided ul'Kl^rSectioneSorffiiej^illilniyam. 1n thatviCT/offfie Inatter, theprowsotosub^le^ofRulet^the^uleshasno^ to^ha facts of this case and tti& irrterpretatlon and opinion handed jdoWn by L^.Bhactoo, J., insimnar factsituatton, is unfflaieptionable. In tts facls and circumstanoes of ttie case, the Coflector oughf not to^have passed the impugned order on 7.11.2001 withdravnng hls order dated 18.6.1997^ wherebyandwhereunderhe Kad appointed the petitiorier as Panch^atSeci'gtarytpGraml^incliayatiBacteaonCharbhata.ltistrite thattheimpugn^a<^n<rfth6<^lec^Rajnanc|ga<mtantamoynts^|^ !-v: •'; .'^.•:t::!::::li i^: recluction in Tanlc.and since 'reducfion'in rank' isa major penialty »fitertns ctfRuleSfl^) (h^.oftheRufes, ifecarinotbeimposedon a memberitflttie f^nchayat Sen^wfthoutTOlTdi.iBfiF^ai^ulardep^ erwisagedunderRule7oftheRules.Th$refoi^ln^orcufflS^ ?'il i!/h impugnedotder ^s$^ bytheiGollector.ReijnandgaORDistFii^cannrtbe sustainedinlaw. ! i II ^^^^J^^^^ ^^^s®^^^®^^^^i^^Ss%^%®; ;:iUl ^ A'ganl 6. In the result and for the foregoing dfseussions, we allow the writ petition quashmg e inipugned order Annexure P^4 dated 7.11 .2001. No cosfs. The petitioner feentttled to all beneflte, pecuniary and ottieiwfse, fiowing from the quastling of ttie impugned oreter Annwure PM dated 7.11.20)1. We, howsver, matde itveryclearftatttiis ordershallnot come in the way ofCollector; District Rainandgaon andfor theGram Panchayat Badgaon Charbhata, as fte K^ may be, Irom mittating the disc^lm^ actfon against IheipeUUoner foi(ttte alleged misconduct committed by him> If ttiey are so a<N^, stri(^lih accordance With law and m terms of the procedure prescribedinRule-^oftheRutes. Sd/- CMef Justice Judge DilipRaosahebDeshmukh judge 7^ E1-, lliit-' j ....—--—