^ ^^- ^ /^T> IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.t WRIT PETITION (S} N0. ^9-3 QF 2008 PETITIONER ^ .^'^ ^ ^^' yy ^" RESPONDENTS Y^f ^ ^^l ^•-""..^.^ ^'^''f'" ^ ^' '^',^',^ Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Son of Shri Mordhwaj Tiwari, aged about 40 years, Occupation Panchayat Secretary of Village Panchayat Bandhauri, and Resident of Viltage Darmohli, Janpad Panchayat and Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. The Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Marwahi, District c Bilaspur (C.G.). 5. Gram Panchayat Bandhauri, Janpad Panchayat Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Through: The Sarpanpt^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f"'" ^' ^ ^^ A,I?WQ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WR3T PETiTiON (S} N0.1443 OF 2008 Petifioner Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 27 day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 05/04/2007 (Annexure.P/7) wherebythe petitioner has been removed from his ser/ice. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi on 10/06/2004 (Annexure P/2) by resolution dated 02/03/2004. Thereafter, without following the weil settled principles of iaw, the petitioner was removed from his sen/ice by the Jmpugned order dated 05/04/2007 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bandhori. According to the petitioner, the order of termination dated 05/04/2007 (Annexure P/7) is not passed by the competent authority, as the order has been passed by the Sarpanch not by the Secretary of Gram Panchayat. 3. Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State does not controvert the tegal submission that without following the procedure as prescribed Rule 7 pf Chhattisgarh Panchayat Sen/ice (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short Hthe Rules, 1999"),no order of removal/termination may be passed. 4. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 has not been complied with. This Court in Dhaiuram Kosaria v. State of C.G. & Others held for imposition of major penalty i.e. removal/termination compliance of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 as mandatory. Indisputably, the mandatory compliance has not been done. Thus, the order of termination is quashed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge " 2006(2)C.G.LJ.186