N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP WRIT PETITION No.635é 2006 Korfik Rom Rdfhic, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Mosot Rom Rothio, Ponchoym‘ Kormi / Secretory Gram Panchoyof Godpor, Tah. Kharsio, Disff. Raigarh (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS J. Sfafe of Chhaffisgarh, 1hrough — its Secretory, Departmen’r of Village Panchayat and Rural Developmenl D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). 2. Depuly Director, Depll of Panchayaf and Rural Developmenf, Ralgarh (CG) 3. Chief ExécU’rive Officer, Panchayal — Kharsia, Disfricf ' Raigarh (C.G.) Gram Sobha, Panchayaf Godpar ’rhrough — Sarponch Gram Panchayaf Godpar Tah Kharsia Disfric’r Roigorh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS / K , Janpad \ 4>. Gram I UR ‘5. Sarponch, Gram Panchcym‘ Godpar, Tah. Kharsia Disff. Rcigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICIE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ‘ INDIA, ,‘ We“ NR HASH C(XE’RT OF £HHATY$3GARH : BILASFUR WgiT PETmGN {S} NQ$Q5€5 (3F 2&36 Kamk Ram Rathia Versus Siate of Chhamsgarh & 0thers (Writ Pe‘titicn under Art§c§e 228 0f the Censtmation ef' india) S§ngie Bench : Hon’bie $hfi Sa‘tish K. Amihmri. J. PEWTWNER RESPONDEN‘TS Present :- €hr§ AN B§1ak§ag counsei for ihe petiiiaaer. Shri AV. Sfiéhar, Pane} Lawyef for the State. Shri $umi Sahu, munsa few the respcndems No.c‘3 & 5. QRDER (ORAL) {Passed cm thés 4"“ éay a? Februayy, Ema} By ih§s pet§i§cm me getitianer seeks tu cha3§enge the iegamv and vai§dity 9f the efc‘ser da‘ied ”W4 U-2OQ$ (Awnexme -— Pl?) Passed bv the Saipanch, Gram ?am:hvat Gadpara whereby and whereunder '{he pei§iiener was remc‘v’ed frem the pest of ganchayat Kami. The facts, in nutsheil, fa disposa§ af the case are thai the eeiiiionef was appem’ied as Panchayat KarmiJPanchayat SSecretafy on 16414995. Ai? of a sudden by erder {iat’ed 1?-’30-20i38 {Annexure — PM) eassed by the Sarpanch: Gram Panchayai Gedpar, the petiiiener was remeved fmm the past of Panchaya‘k Kafmi without fo§icwmg the due pmcees e’f law. Thus, ihis eetitbn. Learnee counsei appeei‘mg fey the pe€§t§cner subm‘ais wee m charge-Shea has been issued am m ea’iquiw bee beam ceridueted eefere the impugned remeval order was passea. The impugried actkm was taken Witheet campiymg wikh the manéaten; grovieions @ (is U) :sieadings and ‘me documents appended memo. 6f Rule 7 of the Chhattisgam Panchayat Senate {Disc§p§$me and Appea§§ Ruiee, 1%3, {feu’ shaft “the Ruéee, $993. 4. Leamed caunse§ appearéng m ihe respwndents submii tha‘i admii‘iediy, r20 enquiry as envisaged umier Rme "f 0f the Ruéee: ’3999 was conducted; However, shew cause notice was served en the petmenev. i have heard ieamed counsel appearmg for ihe gariiee. perused the ‘fhe queet§en of law inveived in ibis case is ash.) whether the gbeEEtioner, Wm was decEared as Fanchayai $ec¥etezy, can be removed from the post withcut sampaying with proper precedua'es as iaid éown in Ruie ”i 9f tine Ruies, 1999. Adm§ttea§iy, as avefreti by kamed ceunsei appeaf‘mg for the pemcmer that the peiitioner was removed without suwiying me charge-sheet aw wiihoui conducimg anv enquiry. $i is weH-settied prmciwe of §aw es ensmined in Ru3e 7 ef the Rwes, §99§ that if The Gmm Panchayai preposes i0 remove a F’anshayat Karma inciudmg Paa'acheya‘t Secretary, the same may be done in accwdancE Wm: the pwcwui‘e prescimed m Raie 7 a?" the Ruiesa €999“ Admitiedw, the Qfam Panchaya‘t, before passing éhe‘ §mpugned orée¥ has not compiieca with the pmvisions of Ruie 7 of the Ruies, “Pi-3g9. 2 This Court, in {Jhaiurem Kesan‘e v. State of CG ans! orhers? a‘ ’26G6 x’ A obsewed as undef: ‘; CGLé “:88 ”W. :t is further admitted by al§ the pariies that the m‘Qceeufe fur hawmg an enqaia'y is preemibed umier Rme ? of the Ewes ’133§ fm‘ impasiiicm 0f major penaityl ihat has not been f-siicxww. Heme, the ierminaiien 3s bad amj vmated an the gmund 0f mn-compi§ance of the stamten/ pfoVEions and dema! of the garmcipbs af natura§ justice. if amounts is infra£iion a? not oniy the provisaans of Ruie 7 of the Ruées 1Q99 mg the provasicms af Articia 311(2} of the Cansiitution 0f mdia aisc. The crder 53 m few: pena$ én raature havimg civi! sanswuences am as gush the eiabsrate previ$§an cf Rme ? of the Ruies §§§9 was appiicabSe in the sase of the acetitioma hefere tea’mmating his sewices.” Furtheé’, in geegam Ram v. Sfaée of CG am ofhors‘, ihio {hurt cb$ewed as unéer: “7’, W§th regayd t9 exearc§$e cf pawe; by we High Cami undey Amcie 22$ and 227 of the Consii‘iuibn af inéia, ihe Hon’b§e 8upmma Cami in Qatena of deciSions have iaid dgwn the wincipies of !aw ‘Ihai “ma H§gh Cam mus §urisdiciéon and power i0 1nter§ere if ’xhe {3mm i$ ~3at§sféeé {hat the are! is margifes$ and apparem an the faw ofihe praceedinga dear igmrance and utter disregami of pmvi$iens of iaw andior a grave imjusi§ce 0r grega visiation sf justice has occasiomd thereby m ‘ihe presem sasa, revenue Authmitiess'Tribunms have completeEy igmrw fir‘1e staméeay previs§ons cf Rule ? af {he Ewes, $99 and them is manife$t ermr 0f the facis on the face a? 'recmd, wiihcm requérirxg am; %nvestiga‘iiera or enguiw‘ Aufmitiediy, the aijegsd sh¢w musae mime dated 2‘K2V20Q3 (Annexure R13} ceuid mt have been sewed through the GLédi Kotwar an 2492.2m3i3, three days be‘fme km §$$ue 0f ahew cause miice. Macs natéce a3 cantempiated umjer Ruie 7 of the Ruioo 199$ woo issoed to the pozitmner. Prior €o gnomission of ‘ihe eswquiry repoai on 29‘32300 {Anoexwe Rf5), the Gram Pancoaya‘t resoiveo‘ to {emovo the ooiiooizof §¥om his service on ‘i8.£35.20w and pmwam thoyoofx ordoi of mo romovai; was oaoood on 3@.G5.200G (Amexure P13)” Non—comwance oa‘ the $ia‘iuiory pmv§sions 3nd o’eniai of p:inc§p!es of na‘turai ios€ice ‘xantamoums io infraction of not oniy the pmvisiono- of Ruie T of the Rakes, 1%9 but the pmvieions og‘ Amoie 311 i2) of ’ihe {Sonstitution of iodia aéso. The ordef of a‘emovei being per;e% m nature. vieiténg with civii coosequenoes. cenno‘i be passed withoul: 2 2306 LT (cs) ~ Gawr§ homang enguky irl acaardance with prescribed 'm Rme 7 of ém Rmae respcndents have mt f0 befere passing the §mpughed crdef. ihe impugreed crdar d m View 6f faregoing, (Annexuye - Pm Passeé by the $érpamhg Godpar §s quashed. Accoi'dingiy, the writ pwtmn ss a§iowed ta the abwe. Ne order ask) casts. Howevea we at §§berty to take "Rash stew in ac Ru§es 1999! if so adv'ised‘. 13. ex‘ieni indicaied tha rewondan‘i autharitias cardarsca with RuEe 7 m‘ £‘ne ated ‘% 7—1 G-EGG$ (3mm ?aachya%, Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotx‘i ; Judge l % the e§abmaie pmvisioasE a$ SE 1&99‘ §i is: ihu3, ciear than: ihe iiowed “ma statuimy pmvi3ians cf iaw €