‘ \ H!GH acUR‘E‘ 0?: SEHATTB$GARW giL%S?UR Wti‘t §et¥iéon No 31 2& a? 2%8 Peimoner $mk. Ganeshia Bai. Wfo. Shri Baiaram Sahu. aged abom 53 years, Anganbad§ WMken Teliapuran,danpad Panchayat & Tah$ii Lormi, District Biaspur (CG). Versus 1) $ta'te of Chhattisqarh through $ecre‘tafv! Panchavat 53¢ $o<§al 5Weifa¥ek Departmen} :‘viamraiaya, DFKS. Bhawam $ha3ir§ Chow; RaEguMCG). Respandeats 2} The P‘fesMeni Janpaci {Qanchavat — Lormiq ‘E'ahsS! v-v Lorm§, Digtyist Bé!aspur {CG}. 3'} “k"he fl'h‘ief Executive {Efficer Janpad Pamhayat — Lsrmi, D§$tyiat Silaspw {CG} 4) “‘é'he Pafiyojna Animkar'a. Ekikrit §ai Vika5 Par§ya§na, Ls¥mi, Tahs§§ a Larmi‘ Diwim Biiaspur {CG}. 5) .é‘dditionai CcHector, Biiaspur {CG} ipa$$ea on this 13"“ eiay efALggust, 2mg By this pei‘ition! ihe petitioner impugns the ordef daied M-5—20G5 (Annexure PM) mssed by the Addi‘tionai Coiiectar, 8iiaspur, in Panchayat Revision Case No. 11-A—323/‘i5l2034—2005‘ whereby mmoval 0f ihe pei‘iiioner by order dared 27-1 O—ZGIM (i-innexure P/Z) was found just and proper. 2) Shri Santosh Sam, iearned counsei appearing? for ihe peiiiioner submits that the netrtioner was duly appainted thrcugh proper seiaction on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarfaf$ahayika in viiiage Teiiapuran by the Project {)moer, §ntegrated Chiidran 3eveiopmeni fJroiect‘ Lorrni. Withour hoid§ng an enquiry {Writ Petition undef Ariicie 226/227 6f the Ccmsiiiution of india) SE: i-ioniiaie Wk Saiish K. ikgnihoiri, .3" ‘F’resent: Shri Santosh Sam counsei forthe pe’tit‘wner $h¥§ \run Saa, Emit. Adwnate far :he ;’es;mnden:s Nc. 1 and 5;’$iaie. {ERAL 9R§ER and affarding w: Opportunity 0f hearing to the pemionen the petitioner was remaved fmm semce bv order dated WAG-2004 {Amexure W2) 0n frze ground ihat fhere was reguiar auarrei beiween the petitioner and Sahayika and despiie severaE warnings giveia t0 the petitiener no impmvement was found. Thus, the order of remaval was passed by the Chief Executive Cfficer, Jangad Pamhayat: Loa'mi. 3) Being aggrieved, the petéiioner has preferred a revis§on under the \“a provismns 0f CS Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1§§3 befom the Additienai Sweeter? B§ia5vut “fhe Additéona? Coiiecior. Bi3espur. witheut examining the fact asie whether “the provisions 0f the scheme for removai af Anganbadi karyakaliai$ahayika were foiiowed in its ietter and epii’ii, upheici the ordei of removai dated 2‘i-1G-2004 (Annexure PI2). "i‘hus. this petiiion impagi’as ‘zi'ie order dated 27-10-21’X34 {Amexure PQ) gassed by the i‘xddiiionai Coiiecior, Biiaspur. Learneoi ccunsei further submits that the $tate Gavemment by Angaebadi KawakartafSahayak Aepointment Poiicy dated 27-5-19§5 has made conditiens of removai of Anganbao‘i Kawakarta/Sahayika in caee of eeiious campiaint. tie ciause {2) under Anganbadi Keryakartal$ahayika Appointment Poiicv. it is stated that ?ancheyat Anganbadi KaryakarteiSahayika can be removed after enquiry. Learned counsei further reiies on cieuse (3); under the same heau‘ing, wherein it is provided that fer a simple comeiaint Anganieadi Karyakartai$ahayika may not be removes? from sen/ice. 4) Per contra, Shri Arun $ao, iearned couneei appearing for the respendents No. t and SIState wouid submit that there was a eroper enquiry conducted ray the Project mficer. but atimitteeiy no apportunity of hearing was a‘i'iercieei to the netitioner. Thusg the petitioner taiied to put forward his case before impugned \ i the removai order was nasseci. .- r3), \“§\ 5) Com§>iiance cf principie 0f natufa§ justice is a pre—cond§iion to paSséng of an order which is punitive and visits with civii (evié) consequences. fiespim service of notice, respondents No. 2 and 3 have cmsen 110% to appear before the Court and have not made any repreeentaiion. 6) i have heard ieamed caunsei appearing fer i’ne paniee, eemsed the pieadings and documente appended thea'etou 7:; it is evident niat me impugned removai order was passed withem feliowing pnncipie of naturai just§ce and fair May in-action. The Shief Executive Ufficer. Janbad Panchava’t! Lormis has not compiied with even grovisions of the scheme wherem ii is oieariy previded thai before remove: of Anganbadi KargakanaiSahayikai groper enquiw must be heid. Pmpei‘ enquiry means Show cause notice io ihe deiinquent empioyee and oppor‘zuni‘ty f0 me deiinquent to put fem/arc: his case. before passing the oreer. This has not been done 3n the preseni case. Thus, the impugned removai order as weii as order paeeeoi by ihe Addiiionai Coiiector, Biaaspur, are vriiated ane deserve to be quashed. 8‘) Accord'mgiy‘ the impugned oroer dated ‘ii-5-2W5 (Annexure PM) as weii as the order dated 27-10-2004 (Annexure W2) are quashed and ihe petition is aiioweo’. The petitioner is eniitied to aii the conseqneniiai benefits fiowing from quashing of the impugned orders. No costs, (/ sal— / Ra} u Sarish K. Ag‘mm Sudge /r