AP^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT-ISGARH : BILASPUR Wnt Petition JS} No. 3189 of 2008 Petitioner Aghaa Siagh Jaiigade, aged about 36 years, S/o Issar Jaagade, R/o Rampur, Post, Ramrampur, Talisil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari. Versus Respondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Paachayat aiid Rural Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. The Director, Partchayat, Raipur, The CoUector, Dhaaitari. Gram. Paachayat, tliroiigh its Sarpaiich Gram Panchayat Raxapur, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtad. Baldau Siagh Dhniw, Ex Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Rampiir, Talisil Kunid, Distt, DhaBitari. Sub Divisional Ofiicer, Dhaaitad. 2. 3. 4. 5.' 6. WRIT PETIT10N UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Parag Kotechay Advocate for tlie petitioner. Shri Yashwaat Sm.gh Thakur, Deputy Advocate GeneraA for fhe respondents No. 1, 2, 3 aad 6. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Advocate for tlie respondent No.5. Q RD'E,R(G a.y (Passed on ttus 26th day ofJime, 2009) . 1. The present petition, filed imder Article 226 & 227 of fhe Constitution of India ioipugns flie order dated 7,4.2008 (Annexure P/7}, passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 2. Leam.ed counsel appeariiig for tiie petitioner submits fhat the petitioner was appoiated as Panchayat Karmi/ Secretaiy of Gram Paachayat Raaipur, Block Kuind, Distiict Dhaoitaii by order dated 30.10.1995 (Annexure P/l). On the basis of some coraplanits made agaiast the petitioner, by resolution dated 22.6.2000 (Anuexure P/12, passed by the Gram Paachayat, the petitioner was renioved froin flie post of Secretai3r (Paachayat Kai'nii). TIie aUegations agamst tlie petitioner are fhat he did not coraplete traiisaction register ejid coniBiitted irreguladties io. distributiou ofpatta aad dereMction io. duty of Panchayat. Leam.ed counsel submits tliat fhe iaipugned resohition, passed by tlie Grain Panchayat was iUegal aiid bad 011 fhe ground that fhe petitioner was not afforded aiiy opportunity of hearing and tiie order of terBiniation was passed in. contraventiou of fhe provisions of Rule 7 of fhe Clihattisgarh Paiichayat Service (Discipliae aad Appeal) Rnles, 1999 (for short 'the Rules, 1999?). Beiag aggrieved, fhe petitioaer filed an appeal before fhe Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtaii, which was disinissed by order dated 3.3.2005 (Annexure P/5), Thereaftei^ fhe petitioner preferred aa appeal before tihe Collector, Dhamtari, which was dismissed by order dated 31.1.2006 (Aunexure P/6). By the iaipugned order dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P/7), fhe revision filed by the petitioner was also disndssed by fh.e Director, Paiichayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipui'. Leanied counsel appearing for fhe petitioner subinits that Rule 7 of tih.e Rules, 1999 provides for procedure before termmathig service of a ineniber of Paachayat In fiie uistaiit case, tiie said provisions were not foUowed, no defiiiite charges were fx'amed aiid ttie petitiouer was not served wifh the articles of charges before holdiag aii enquiry, leadiag to teraiiaation oftiie petitioner froin his seivices aad ia fact neifher fhe show cause uotice was issued nor fhe enquiry WSLS held. It was further subniitted that 1 tiie termiaation was passed on tlie basis oftlie resolution ofthe Grara Paiichayat ia its nieetmg dated 22.6.2000. The sarae could not have been passed witliout followuig tlie provisions of law, prescribed ta Rule 7 of tlie Rules 1999. In support of his subm.issions learaed counsel cited a decision of this Court iii the matter of Dhaliiram KosariaVs. Btate ofC.Q. & others1, which was reMed on m Aiijordas Vs. State of CIihattisgarii & others2 . 6. Leaj-nLed counsel appearing for tfie respondents No. 1, 2, 3 aiid 6/ State fairly adraits tliat the provisions of Rule 7 of tiie Rules, 1999 were not compUed witib. before passing fhe ioipugned order. 7. Learaed counsel appearmg for tlie rcspondent No.5 opposes fhe petition on tlie ground fhat havmg regard to th.e iUegallties and uregulaiities comniitted by fhe petitioner, tiie petitioner does not deser^e auy synipathy. 8. Having heard learaed couiisel appearing for tlie parties aad haviag perused tlie pleadiags aad docuBient appeuded tiiereto, it is evideut that the impugned tei'oiin.ation order was passed without foUowiiig tlie proper procedure of law, as presciibed under Rule 7 of tlie Rules, 1999. The procedure for holdiag aa enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 of tlie. Rules, 1999 for mipositioii of inajor penalty. Hence, the termiaation is bad aiid vitiated on fhe ground of non-conipliance of the statutory provisions aad denial of the prmciples of natural justice. It aoiounts to iafraction of not only fhe provisions of Rule 7 of fhe Riiles, 1999 but also the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Coustitution of India. The order is in fact penal io. nature, 2 (2006(2) C.G.L.J. 186} 2 {2008 (III) MPJR-CG 1 10) ^c"^ j j; \^y/ 9. 10. 11. 12. Thabir haviag civil consequences aad as such conipliaiice of tlie elaborate provisions, as enshnned in Rule 7 of tiie Rules 1999 is niaiidatoiy m. fhe present case. (See fhe case of Dhaiurasai Kosaria aad Aajordas (supra)}. In view of tlie foregonig, fhe impugued order dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P/7), order dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure P/6), order dated 3.3.2005 (Annexure P/ 5) aad the resolution dated 22.6.2000 (Aunexure P/2) are set aside aad quashed. On tlie question ofback wages, no foundation has been laid to establish tlie fact fhat whether tiie petitioner was gaiafuUy eraployed elsewhere or not dunag ttiis period, Even othier^ise, keepisig ia view fhat the tei'mination order has been vitiated not on nierit but on accouut of non-coBipUance of tiie statutoiy provisions before termiaatiag ttie services of th-e petitioner, 30% back wages would be sujfficient ia tlie iaterest ofjustice. Accordingly, tiie writ petition is aUowed. No order asto costs. However, fhe respondents/autliorities, on tiieii' reqiiest ai'e granted Uberty to take fresh steps ia accordao.ee witii Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, tfso advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge