^ 'tf- .0 •H COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BiLASPUR Writ Petition No. 495 of 2003 ft^ Petitioner Foolchand Baghel, aged about 40 years, s/'o. Sasudeo Baghei, r/o. Village Madagaon, Gram Panchayat Block Devbhog, District Raipur (CG). Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgam through Secretary, Mlnistry of Panchayat and Deveiopment, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG). Shrimati Jubti Bai, w/o. Ghosiram Sari, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat .Madagaon, Block. Devbhog, District Raipur (CG). 3. The Collector, Raipur. : 4. The Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue) Garlyaband, District Raipur (CG). Writ Petition under Article 225/227 of Constiiution of india) • SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present: Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate counsel for ihe petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panei Lawyerforthe State. AL GRDER (Passed on this 27th day of February, 2009] Notice v;as issued on 26-4-2003 aad Dasti service was also penmtted in addition to usual mode of service. All the respondents were duly served. Despite service ofnotice, none appears on behalf ofthe respondent No.2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the senrices ofthe petitioner wtiile working as Panchayat Kanni was removed by order dated 31- s-2002 (Ajmexure P/l) passed by the respondent No.2. Being agerieved, the petitioner prefen-ed an appeal before the Sub Divisionai OfBcer, Gariyaband in Case No.01/A/89/2Q02-2003. The Sub Divisional Officer, after havmg considered all the aspects came to the conclusion that the petitioner was nof affbrded proper opportunity of hearing as enshrined in Rule 7 of C.G.i Panchayat Seryice (Discipiiae and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short'the Rules").; Accordmgly, the Sub Divisioaal ofEcer by order dated 2-11-2002 (Annesairej P/2) quasaed ths order dated 31-8-2002 passed by the respondent No.2. In| 1'. i; 1:.!^ ::^ . i»»*;TTTI,tni|t-—l f.'S^^W uk(^. revision filed by the respondent No.2 against the order dated 2-11-2002 passed by the Sub Divisional OrScer (Revenue), the Additionai CoUector, Gariyaband by ordei- dated 10-2-2003 (Anne3aire P/3) quashed fhe order dated 2-11-2002 passed by the Sub Divisional OiEcer without assigning any reason on the around that since the Panchayat Karmi was removed on account ofthe resolution of Gram Paucahyat, no appeal would iie to Sub Divisional OfBcer. The Additional Collector, Gariyaband has quashed the order in a casual manner without examinina ail the facts ofthe case. L^amed counsei fdrther submits the petitioner was not gainfu'ly employed else during this period 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner was appointed as Paachayat Karmi. It is not the case ofthe respondents that any show cause notice vvas issued to the petitioner or any procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules was followed before the impugned order was passed. A Division Bench of^iis Court in ils order dated 25.07.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1656 of 2004 and this Court in its order dated 15.11.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1850 of 2001, have held that Rule 7 ofthe Ruies have to be followed in the case oftermination ofa Panchayat employee. 4. This Court iri Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State ofC.G. & Others . Beegan Ram Vs. State ofC.G. & Otliers2, and Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State ofC.G. & Others3, held that the non-compliaace of the statuton' provisions and denial of principles ofnafairal justice tantamount to infi-action ofnot only the provisions ofRule 7 ofthe Rules of 1999, but, the provisions of Article 311 (2) oftiie Coastitdtion oflndia also. The order ofremoval, being penal m nature, visiting with civil consequences, cannot be passed withoirt holdins the enquir}' in accordance with the eiaborate provisions as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules of1999. 5. It is thus ciear that the respoadents have not followed the statutor\' provisioas oflaw before imposing the major penalty ofremoval ofthe petitioner from the post ofPanchayatKarmi. 6. For the reasons and the discussioa made hereinabove, and the dicta laid down by ihe Court in various cases (supra), the .order dated 10-1-2003 (Anacxure P/3) passed by the Additionai Collector- Gariyaband, is quashed. 7. Having regard to the facts situatioa ofthe case when the petitioner does aot have suiRcient source to perform other fanctions, m the interest ofjustice .gFant of 30% back wages would be sufScient, keeping in Yisa'-Afi-£u^-tI—"'he -?) L^ termination order has been vitiated not on merit, but, on account of non- compliance of the statutory provisions before terminatmg the services of fiie petitioner. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not come in the wav offhe respondents from mitiating the proceedings against tae petifioner, ifthey are so advised, strictly in accordance with law and in tenus of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 oftlie Rules. According2y, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indieated above. No satislt K-Agnihotri Judge 1. 2006 (2) CGU 186 7. T.fnfiT.T FG41 3.2005LT(CG)U1 PJ