^ AMENDEDWRITPETITION INTHEHIGH COUR OF eHHAmSGARH AT BILASBUR. WRITPETITION 1117/2005 PETITIONER •^h RESPONDETNS: 1. Chandra Kumar Banjare, S/o • Aghnoo Ram Banjdre, aged about 40 years, ( Ex Panchayat Karrrii) R/o. Lohar Pathra, PostKorra, Tahsil Kurud, Disfrict Dhamfari ( C.G.) Versus • v 1. State'ofC.G. Though Secrefary, Panchayat and Samaj Kalyan, Raipur ( C.G.) , 2. Secretary, Panchayat| ahd Samaj kalyan, Secrefariat, Raipur. 3.' Deputy director, Panchayat and Samaj kalyan Dhamatari District Dhanitari. (C.G.) ^ , 2. Gram Panchayat Charbta, ThrQUgh Seeretary, Gram Panchayat Charota, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtati;( C.G.]' 3. Sarparich, Gram Panchayat Charota, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari ( G,G) 4. • . :: • ! : :. • - • . INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A Vfmt IN THE KATURE QF PETITIONER HIGH_CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.1117 OF 2005 Chandra Kumar Banjare RESPONDENTS Versus State of C.G. and others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 14th day of March, 2012) 1. By this petition, the petitioner see*ks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 13.12.2004 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Charota by which the petitioner has been removed from the service. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi/Secretary on 03.11.1995and rendered his services without any adverse remark. However, all of a sudden the respondent No.4 issued charge-sheet dated 08.10.2004 (Annexure P-6) raising certain allegations. The petitioner submitted detailed reply on 20.10.2004 (Annexure P-7) to the charge sheet and denied all the allegations leveled against him. The respondent authorities without considering the same in its true perspective removed the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary by order dated 13.12.2004. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed in an iltegal and arbitrary manner and without following the due process of law. 3. Learned counsel next submits that since the mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules, 1999") were not followed before removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 was illegal and bad in law on ground that no proper enquiry was held. In support of his submissions learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Dhaluram Kosaria v. State ofC.G. & others , which was referred approvingly in Anjordas v. State of Chhattisgarh & others . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State while supporting the impugned removal order submits that the impugned order has been passed only after following the due process of law and after 05 12006(2)CGLJ186 22008(III)MPJR-CG110 o' 9. affording ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There are severe allegations against the petitioner with regard to misappropriation of public exchequer and misbehaviour with women. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner without availing the alternative statutory forum that may be available under the provisions of taw has straight away approached this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition may be dismissed. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the matter has been pending consideration for the last 7 years, the petitioner may not be directed to file a statutory appeal in view of that the petitioner is not claiming any back wages. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. ^ It is evident that the impugned order was passed withouf following the proper procedure of law, as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. The procedure forholding an enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 for imposition ofmajor penalty. Hence, the impugned order 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 of the provisions of Article 311 (2) ofthe 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 Dhaluram Kosaria (supra) and Anjordas (supra)}. In view of foregoing, the pefition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2004 is set aside. The petitioner is not entitled to backwages, in view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There shalt be no order asto costs. Sd/- - satish K. Agnihotri GOWTI