HI©HCOURT OFCSHHATTISQARH: BtLASPUR Writ PetStion No. 798 of 2003 Petitioner Responcients Bhojraj Miri, aged about 30 years, S/o. Anandram Mm, working as Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Jeora, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Seoretary, Department of Panchayat, DKS Building, Mantralaya, Rajpur (Chhattj^arh). 2) Collector (Panchayat Branch), Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarti). 3) Sub Divisionat Officer (Revenue), Sarangarh^ District Ra^arh (Chhattisgarh). 4) Gram Panchayat, Jeora through ite Sarpanch, viitage Jeora, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). (Writ Petitton under Article 226J227 of the Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bteMr. Salish K.Agnihotrl,J. Present: Shri B.D. Guru, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4*** January, 2008) Learned counset appearing for thej^tittoner submits that th@ petittoner was working as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Jeora, District - Raigarh. The ser^ices of the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary came to an end vide order dated 17-2-2003 (Annexure P/1), without affording an opportunify of hearing. 2) The stand of the respondents/State in its retum at para 5 Ss as under: "That the contents of paragnaph 3 ofthe petftionare denied in view of the preiiminary submissions contained above. It is further respectfully submftted that It was not neoessary for the Searned Collector to notice to the petitioner before passing the order denotifying the petitioner. The consequences of the impugned orcter would not be removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi because the Gram Sabha appoints the Panchayat Karmi and he can be removed only by Gram Sabha". 1 ^Ky - ^- 3) It clearly establishes that the seMces of the petttioner were removed without afFording an opportunity of hearing. The principle of naturat justice is one of the basic pillars of service jurisprudence. No order, which entaits oMI or evil consequences, can be pass^d, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Leamed counsel reties on the judgment and order dated 25-7-2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petitfon No. 1656 of 2004, wherein it was held that in the Tacts and circumstances of the case, the Cotlector ought not to have passed the impugned order on 7-11-2001 withdrawing his order dated 18-6-1997 whereby and whereunder he had appointed the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary to Gram Panchayat Badgaon Charbhata. it is trite that the impugned action of the Collector, Rajnanc^aon tantamounts to reduction in rank and since 'reduction in rank' is a major penatty in terms of Rule 5 (b) (iv) of the Rutes, it cannot be imposed on a member of the Panchayat Sen/ice without conducting ©iBgutar departmental enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rutes* Therefore, in the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Cotlector, Rajnandgaon District cannot be sustained in law. j? 4) Admittedly, the impugned order dated 17-2-2003 (Annexure P/1) canceling the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary, was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No shcw cause notice was issued and the order was passed at the baok of the petittoner. Thus, the impugned order dated 17-2-2003 (Annexure P/1) is bad-in-law and deserves to be quashed. 5) Accordingly, theimpugned order dated 17-2-2003 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and the petition is allowed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raju