(14": WV é” IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISG-ARH Singh 8mm W.P. No. M$V /2oo3 PETITIONER « Shiv Kumar Sahu, aged about 3 1 years, S/o. Pramlal Sahu Ex. Panchyat Karmi and Secretaly, Gram Panchayat Dhardae, Tahsil Pamgarh, R/ o. Village Dhardae Tah. Pamgarh Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RS ESPONDENT 1 The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Deptt. of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir—Champa(C.G.) The Gram Panchayat Dhardae Through its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhardae, Tah. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) v RIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITU— TION OF INDIA FOR IsSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITISI IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMus CERTIORARI ANY V , RDER(S) OR DIRECTION (S) To Do JUSTICE IN THE MATTER W O ff) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1954 of 2003 Petitioner Shiv Kumar Sahu Versus - Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh 8a others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLEV 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF I‘NDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Ravindra Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 85 2. x i Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. )x! n Shri S. P. Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No.4. O RD ERIOral) (Passed on this 16th day of March, 2010) Heard. 1. The present petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 26.5.2003 (Annexure P/ 16), passed by the respondent No.2/Collector, Janjgir Champa in Case No, 13/A—89(23)2002—2003. 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 10.6.2002 (Annexure l3/ 1) the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in Village Panchayat - Dhardae, Tahsil - Pamgarh, District — Janjgir Champa. Subsequently, by order dated 11.7.2002 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner was declared as Secretary. \ w '73 3. By order dated 27.9.2002 (Annexure P/3), passed by the Collector, Janjgir Champa, the petitioner Was removed from the post of Panchayat Secretary, canceling the order dated 11.7.2002 (Annexure P/2), on the ground that some complaint Was received against the petitioner and on enquiry the same was found proved. Being aggrievedthe petitioner led an appeal before the Commssioner, Bilaspur DiVision, Bilaspur i.e. Appeal No. 89A—15/02—03, wherein on 28.10.2002 (Annexure P/4) the order dated 27.9.2002 was stayed. Efforts were made by the i petitioner for compliance of the stay order at various level but of no avail. B th impugned order dated 26.5.2003 (Annere P/16) the Collector, Janjgir Champa has close the matter in regard to compliance Of the stay rder dated 28.10.2002 on the ground that the Gram Sabha in its meetng dated 2.10.2002 has already removed the petitioner from the pt of Panchaya Karmi, prior to the date of passing of the stay order and the petitioner has not chllenged the decision of the Gram Sabha. Learne counsel ppearing for the petitioner would submitthat since the mandatory, statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 were t followed before removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, the impugned order dated 27.9.2002 (Annexure P/3), the order dated 26.5003 (Annexure P/ 16) and the resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 2. 10.2002 were illegal and bad on the ground that the petitioner was not afforddd any opportunity of hearing. In support of his \K\ , fi i 7/ y e xu d o i os t a d a no .2 submissions learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed his reliance on a decision of this Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. 8a othersl and Anjordas Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & othersz. 7. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that there was no need to comply with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. The petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi by the resolution a passed by the Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat, Dhardei in its meeting dated 2.102002 and the petitioner has not challenged the resolutioni The petitioner has not filed the copy of the iresolution dated 2.10.2002 and the petitioner had refused to ' accept the same (Annexure R/ 1). Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 provides for procedure before terminating service of a member of Panchayat. In the instant case, it isapparent that the said provisions were not followed, no definite charges were framed and the petitioner was not served with the statements of charges before holding an enquiry, leading to termination of the petitioner from his services and in fact neither the show cause notice was issued nor the enquiry was held. The termination was passed on the basis of certain allegations of misappropriation of funds and dereliction of duties. The impugned order of removal is unsustainable. l {2006(2) C.G.L.J. 186} 2 {2008 (111) MPJR-CG 110} 9.‘ It is evident that the impugned removal order was passed Without following the statutoxy and mandatory procedure of law, as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. The procedure for holding an enquiry is enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 for imposition of major penalty. Hence, the removal is bad and vitiated on the ground of non—compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of the principles of natural justice. It amounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but also the provisions of Article 31 1(2) of the Constitution of India. The order was in fact penal in nature, having civil consequences and as such compliance of the elaborate provisions, as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was mandatory in the present case. (See the case of i Dhaluram Kosaria and Anjordas (supra)}. L 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove that the petitioner was i. , removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary in an arbitrary manner, without following the principles of natural justice and further without following the statutory procedure, the petitioner remained out of the job since 2.10.2002 and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered great financial loss, thus grant of 30% back wages would I sub—serve the interest ofjustice. 11. Resultantly, the petition is allowed with back wages, as afore-stated. The impugned order dated 27.9.2002 (Annexure P/3), the resolution dated 2.10.2002, passed by the Gram Sabha and the order dated 26.5.2003 (Annexure P/ 16) are set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate 95V disciplinary action against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct committed by him, if so advised, in accordance with law and in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. No order asto costs‘ ‘ Sd/— , ‘, Satish K.Agnihotri T . udge If o \V / iakllr