C f-laD IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} WRIT PETITION (S) N0. S.P t7 0^2o66ylAcroe?^"' SERVICE MATTER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MAHER PETITIONER ..^^ ^i^ ^.A.--" iPQRDENTS: .o' :Dashram Rathiya iS/o Shri SunderSai Rathiya Aged about 30 years Panchayat Karmi, Gram-JamargidihBlack/Tah-Dharamajaigarh, Distt.-RaigarhfC.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through :Secretary ,Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). The Dircetor, Department of f-''^ ^ r? . Panchayat and Social Weifare \ ^ f$?* ^' ^<' Mahanadi Khand Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ^. The Deputy Director 1" t^ Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Chief Executive Officers, JanpadPanchayaf'-Dharamajaigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) Gram Panchayat- Nakna through :- Sarpanch Gram Panchayat- Nakna / Janpad Panchayat- Dharamajaigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 6< Shri. Abhimanue Rathiya ,f7.^ Gram Panchayat- Nakana Janpad Panchayat- Dharamajaigarh, Distf.- Raigarh (C.G.) HIGH COURT OFCHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUt PETiTIONER RESPQNDENTS WRST PETITiON (S) N0.2885_0^2007 Dashram Rathiya Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Wnt Petitjon under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Sinate Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satlsh K. Aanihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. None for the respondent No.4, 5 & 6 despite seroice of notice, ORDER i'ORAU (Passed on this 7th day of Aprsi, 2011) 1. Chaiienge in this petition is to the order dated 19/04/2005 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the Deputy Director, Panchayat and SodaE Weifare, District-Raigarh (for short "the Deputy Director"), held removal of the resoondent No.S as bad and vitiated. without 2. '5 having jurisdiction to pass such an order. The facts, in nutsheii, as projected by the petitioner, are thai the resDondent No.S was removed from the oost of Panchavat Karmi on 07/10/2002 (Annexure P/10) after due enquiry. Thereafter, the resoondent No.6 without aDDroachina the competent authoriiv as orovlded under the Drovisions of Ruie 3 of the ChhaKisflarh Panchayats (Appea! and Revision) Rutes, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995'), made a representation to the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director, v/ithout having jurisdiction, set aside the order of remova! passed agalnst the respondegt No.6 and directed the respondent/Panchayat to take steps, in accordance wjth law. Learned counsei appearing for the petltioner, submlts that the direction Issued by the DeDutv Director to foliow the rules after setting aslde the order of removal, is bad in iaw, as under the scheme against She order of removai passed by Gram Panchayat, s^sss^s^s^iBSseasaNai ^t?v' 4. 6. he an aooeat is maintainabie So Sub Divisional OfTieer and thereafter, to the Collector and Director, Panchayat under the provisions of law. The Deoutv Director has no roie in the scheme to grievsnce and pass any order. Shri Bhaduri, iearned Panel Lawyer appearing State/resoondents No.1, 2 & 3 fairiv submits that provisions of law, the Deputy Director has no right to appeai or compla'ntagainst the order of remova! passed Panchavat. j iU^j y snain any v a Gram On consideration of pieadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the Deoutv Direcior has no iurisdiction to entertain any appiicaiion or appeal against the order passed by Sarpanch of a Gram Panchavat. Ruie 3 of the Ruies. 1995 reads as under:- "3. (a) Appeai and appellate authorities- Save v/here It has been otherwise provided in the Act or rutes or bye-laws made thereunder, an appeai sha" lle,- in the case of an order passed by the Sub- Divjsional Officer under any provislon of the Act or rules or byeiaws made thereunder- to the Coltector. in the case of an order passed by the Coltector under any provlsion of the Act or rujes or bye iaws made thereunder- to the [Director in the case of an order passed bv the Director of Panchayats- to the State Government. in the case of an order Panchayat specified in Column (1) ofthe Tab below- to the authority specified in correspond'ng entry in coiumn (2) therei". (1) (2) (a) Gram Panchavat Sub-Divisionai Officer. (b) Janpad Panchayat CoiSector. (c) Ziia Panchayat [Director of Panchayat]". !t is apoears that the resoondent No.S has not taken recourse to appeliate forum by approaching to the Sub Divisiona! Officer ,,,^^S£t^^ .^S^ 1 isy-vj j --/ e?:v^s' /:' ^ ...4 't'3s^s,sfs.^ s. against the order of removal. Thus, the respondent No.6 has accepted the order of removai as final. Thus, no relief couid have been granted to She respondent No.6 for want of challenge. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and under the provisions of law, the impugned order dated 19/04/2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Deoutv' Director, te without authoritv snd the same is 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto cosfe. Sd/- , _ Sat^^Agn otrl Judge Arun