PETiTiONI NON APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITIQNMo. 1836 of2001 Panchamla! Patiey aged 33 years s/o Samani Ram R/o Bhatpachari Tah. Katghora, Distt. Kor&a. VERSUS : 1. Sub Dlvisional Officer, Katghora, Dlstt. Korba. 2. Gram Panchayat Kanberi, Through Saipanch, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Korba, Distt. Korba. 4. Raju s/oSakharam, Secretaiy, Gram Panchayat Kanberi, Teh. Kat^iora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTiCLE 226. 227 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF IND1A tBLHon'bte Shn Satish K. Agnihtrtri. J. Present: Shri F.S.Khare, Advocate for the Shri ArunSao, GovernmentAdvocate .2. 19^ l^ 'f) ^ (Passed on 16th day of March, 2009) 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2does not wish to address the court on any ppint. Howsver, he submits that return 3. The auestjon of !aw involved in thls case is asto 1999 (Annexure P/4) under the provlsions of section 69(1) of the iyam, 1993, (for short the Adhiniram, 1993'), the post without complyini is iaid down in Ruie 7 of the Chhattisgarh iscipiine and Appeai) Rules, 1999, (for short 'the Rules, 1999'). Admittedfy, as averred by ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was removed by a resolutlon passed by the Gram Panchayat as approved by Gram Sabha ~on 18.03.200i (Annexure P/2) making ailegatjons of smbezzlement of Gram Panchayat funds. The matter was taken to the Sub Divisionai Officer (for short 'the SDO'). The SDO, without examininj ail the facts approved the resoiution of Gram Panchayat. it is well settled principle of law as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Ruies, 1999 that if the Pancha^t propos^ to remove a Panchayat Karmi including Panchayat Secretary, the same may be done in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Ruie 7 of the Rules, ^ r!!ili 5. Shri Arun Sao, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents 1 and 3 submits that a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner on 6.2.: (Annexurs P/8) but the petitioner declined 5e that as it may, even if the petitioner declined to accept the notice, a proper enquiry has tb be heid in accordance with Rule 7 of Rules, 1999. Admittediy, the Gram Panchayat, before passing termlnation order has not complied with the pi'ovisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 199. This Court, in Kosana v. State ofCG and otfters1, Beegam Ram v. State afCG others2 and Prahash Chand Som v. State of CG and offiers3, has • 2006 (2) CGLJ 186 -2006LT(CG)41 3200<-LT(CG)151 •/ ^ ^ he!d that non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justics tantamoynts to infraction of not only the provjsions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but the provisions of Article 311(2} of the Constitution of India also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visitingwith civi! (evii) consequences, cannot be passed without holding enquiiy in accordance with the elaborate provlslons, as prescribed in Ruto 7 of the Ruies, 1999. 7. It is thus ciear that the respondents have not foilowed the statutory provislons of law before passing ffie impugied order. 8. On the question of back-wnges, np'foundation has been iaid to ish the fact that wrfiether the petitioner was ^infuily loyed elsewhere or not during the period. Even otherwise, keeping In view that the termination order has been vitiated not on merit, but on account of non-compliance of the statutory provisions before terminating the services of the petitioner, 30% back-wages would be sufficiept in the interest ofjustice. ofthe foregolng.the petition is allowed. The impugned order 6.7.200i (Annexure P/i) is quashed. No order astocosts. Sd/- Satish ^. Agiiiliotri Judgc