CP IOQ, mTHEmGHCOTJRTQFJUDICATUREATmLASPUR CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER ^y/ .* \' ^^ . <yy s s^.' ^' ^'^'' "'^.^' ^?" '»"' W.P.(S) NO. jfcsooy - Kartik Ram S/o Shri Anand Rani Bhardwaj aged 39 years Occupation Service Recruited as Panchayat Karmi at Grain Panchayat Bhaluchunva Block Bagbehara in the Distt. Mahasamund (then Raipur), R/o Village Manboy Distt. Mahasamund (C.G). VERSUS <<!? \\^..^ ^^y RESPONDENTS :-1.8tate of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretaiy Panchayat 85 Rural Development Departnient Mantralay D.K.S Bhavan Raipur (C.G). 2. Collector Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund (C.G). 3. Upper Collector Mahasainund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G). 4. Deputy Director Panchayat & Social Welfare Mahasamund (C.Gj. 5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bagbehara Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.). Bhaluchunva Through it's Secretary under Janpad Panchayat Bagbehara Distt. Mahasamund. 6. Gram Panchayat Bhaluchunva Through it's Secretary under Janpad Panchayat Bagbehara Distt. Mahasamund (C.G). y~>~.•~<-~ -\ /;) 7. Sarpanch Bhaluchunva Panchayat Gram Panchayat under Janpad Bagbehara Distt. Mahasamund (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ^ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. EABI'ICTTT.ARS nB^MU'-BlMT'T'^'"-'""""^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETIT10N (S) N0. 6426 OF 2007 Petitioner Respondents Versus Kartik Ram State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr.Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri S.N.Nande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 to4. Shri C.R.Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No.7 ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 1st day of March, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.3.2005 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Additional Collector, District Mahasamund, holding that the appointment ofthe petitioner was not in accordance with law and as such the Gram Panchayat has rightly resolved to remove the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. 2. The resolution of Gram Panchayatwas approved by Gram Sabha Bhaluchunwa on 18.5.2004. The Additional Collector has completely ignored compliance of the statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline And Appeal) Rutes, 1999 (for short "the Rules, 1999"). The respondents were granted time on 20.4.2010 to produce documents indicating asto whether any steps, as prescribed under the provisions of Rule 7 ». ~i / '^saSsl^ r"? of the Rules, 1999 were followed, but no documents have been filed except some resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat. 3. On perusal of the documents, it is not found anywhere that before passing the impugned order of removal, the petitioner was appointed by order dated 2.12.1995 (Annexure P-1) as Panchayat Karmi. According to the petitioner, he had gone on leave and when he came back, he was not allowed to jointhe service, Thereagainst, the petitioner approached the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, who in turn wrote a letter to the Chief Executive OfRcer, Janpad Panchayat Bagbahara (Annexure P/7), observing that steps taken for removal of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi was not in accordance with law and further, no orderof termination has been passed, thus, the period on ieave be treated as continuity of service on the principle of 'no work-no pay'. Subsequently, the respondentNo.6 and 7 were directed to hand over the charge to the petitioner as during his absence, some other person was appointed on adhoc basis on the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary). Again, on 15.10.2004 (Annexure P/8), it was further directed that the petitioner be permitted to join the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) as the Sarpanch/Secretary had disobeyed the order dated28.09.2004 for handing over the charge to the petitioner. Thereagainst, the respondent No. 7 preferred a revision petition before the Additional Cottector. The Additional Coliector, without examining the facts of the case and the statutory provisions of law, set aside ali the letters dated 21.09.2004, 15.10.2004 and 28.10.2004 (Annexure P/7 to P/9 respectively) passed by the v!?s: 3 Deputy Director, holding that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 28.07.2004, was in accordance with law. 4. Be that as it may, it is evident that by virtue of the resolutionlhe petitioner has beenkept away from his duties, which cannot be done as on the basis of resolution, without following the statutory provisions of lawas prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, no Panchayat Karmi/ Secretary can be removed from the post. There is no dispute that before passing the resolution for removal of the petitioner, the statutory provisions as aforestated, have not been followed. Thus, the resolution cannot be given effect to and the petitioner continues in service till the final order is passed in accordance with the statutory prescription as provided under the provisions of law. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order of the Collector dated 22.03.2005 (Annexure P/1.1) impugned herein, is quashed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- satisi,K.Agu-hotr, Judge •^: