Iil_EiiE_HaN.lBLi_illGH_£QURT_DF_JUDl CATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. £.1^- /2001 PETITIONE.R ^: ^-••^ ,:-1:^" ^<'-' '-'?••' ,^^' ..^ •v<es"^ .•:•'" [SP&NDENIS • Teerathraj^Tiwari s/a Rambharose Tiwasi, aged 37 years, woiking ..-- _as Panchayat Karmij Grasi Pancha- ^'\'"/ yat-Danchdeeh, Janpad Panchsyat- Lundra, district-aarciuj' a (C.G.). vs. T. Sta-te of Chhattisgarh through i the Se.cretary, Dspartinem; of Panchayat, D.K. Bhawan, Raipurt CG 2. The Additional Collector, Sarguj a at 'Ambikapur (C.G.). 3, The Sub Oivisional Officer, Ambikapur, dis tric't-SaEQUi' a (CG)^ 4. S3Sp'~anch, Gram Panchayat- Oanchdeeh, Janpad Parchayat- Lundra, tehsil-Dhcrpur, district- 'Sarou.ia (C.u.). u ;^^[_£y:y_mH UM3ER WTICLE 22o/,22j OLTHE _BLHSJITjJT iGN_, O F_ IN DI,A B 1s E B'fl VA J>%. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRiT PET1TION N0.617 OF 2001 PETSTiONER RESPQNDENTS State of ChhaSisgarh & Others Petition under Articies 226/227 ofthe Constitution of Singie Bench : Hon'ble Sirri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri B.D. Guru, counsei for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panei Lav^-er for the State. None for the resoondent No.4. . ORDER fORALi [Passed on this 28"' day of. iy this petition, the petitioner seeks to chaltenge the iegaiity and vaiidity of the order dated 16-3-2001 (Annexure - P/1) passed fay the Additiona! Co!!ector, Sarguja (Ambikapur), in case No. 1/B-121/2030-2001 (Twrath Raj Tmah v. Sarpanch Smt. Ashs Kuiur & Anothet) wherebv and whereunder the revision fiied by the petitioner herein was reiected. UDholdins the order 23-10-2000 (Annexure - P/8) passed by Ambikapur, in case No.90-B-121/99-2000 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Oonchdeeh). The racts, in nutshsll, for disposal of petjtjoner was appointed as Panchayat on 19-12-1995. Ali of a sudden bv Sub Djvisional Officer, » (TseraV) Rai Tlwari v. case, are thai the >tS (Annexure - P/6) passed by the Sarpanch the peh'tioner was removed from the oost of Panchavat Karmi wthout foilowing the due Drocess of law. AF<f S.S-t-!" i3:^--ES' a 'syy^ :ii>. 'IBSSI'" » Seing aggrieved by the said order, the appeal before the Sub Divisional Ofticer, rejected on 23-10-2000. Thereagainst, the revision before the Additional Coiiector, Sarguja ier preferred an ', which was a , whioh was also rejected bv order dated 16-3-2001 . Thus. this Detition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submlts that no charge-sheet has been issued and no enquiry has been conducted before the impugnsd removaf order v/as passed. The impugned action was taken without complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipiine and Appeal) Rules, 1999, (for short 'the Rules, 1999'). 5. Learneci counsel appearing for the State submits that admittedly; no enqulr/ as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Ruies, 1999 was conducted. Howsver, show cause notics was served on fhe petitioner. 6. I havs heard learned counse! appearing for the parties, pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 7. The auestson of law invoived in this case is asto petitioner, who v»'as dectared as Panchayat Secretary, can be removsd from the post without comDlving with proper procedures as iaid down in Ruie 7 of the Rules, 'i99Q. Admittedly, as averred by learned counsel appearing for the petitionsr that the petitioner was removed withoyt supplying the charge-sheet and wjthout conducting sny enquiry. 3. It is weil-settled principie of taw as enshrined in Rute 7 of the Ruies, 1899 that if the Gram Panchayat proposes to remove a Panchayat •Karml inciuding Panchayat Secretary, the same may be done In accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, tg'ii .<;i.t-.'-t- 19 Panchsyat, bsfore passing the with the Drovisions of Ruis 7 of 1999. Admittediy, the Gram imDugned order has not comol theRuies,1999. 8. This Court, in Dhaiuram Kosaria v. State of C-G &!TCI others1, observed as under: "19. If is further odmitted bv sii the parties that ihe procedure for hofdlng an enquiry is prescribed uncier Ruie 7 of the Rules 1999 for impositfon of major. psnalty, that has not besn follov/ed. Hence, the termination is bad and vitiated on the ground of non-compjiance of fte stetutory prowsions and deniai of ths principies of naturai justice. it amounts to infraction of not oniy the provisions of Ruie 7 of the Rules 1999 bui th® provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitutson of india aiso. The orde;- is in fact pena! in nature having civi! consequences and as such the siaborats provisioR of Rute 7 of the Rules 19M was applicable jn the case of the peiitioner before terminating his services." 9. Further, In Beegam Ram y. State of CG and other^. this Court observed as under; "7. With regard to exercise of power by the High Court under Articie 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, the Hon'ble Supreme Court incatena of decssions have laid down the principles of iaw that the High Court has jurisdiction and power to interfere If the Court is satisfied ftat the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, ciear i^norance and utisr disregard of provisions of law and/or a grave injustice or gross viotation of justice has occasioned thersby. !n the present case, ignored the statutory provisions of Ruie 7 of the Rutes, 1999 and there is manifest error of the facts on the face of record, without requiring any investigation or enquiry. Admittediy, the aiteged shovv cause notice dated 27.2.2CX)0 (Annexure R/3) couid not have been served through the Gudl Kotwar on 24.02.2000, three days before the issue of show cause notice. No notice as contemplated undsr Ruie 7 of the Rujes 1999 was issued td the petiiioner. Prior ' 2006 (2)'CGU 186 •' 2006 LT (CG) 41 -n^- €^^~ '*» 10. to submission of the enculrv reoort on 29.6.2000 (Annexure R/5), She Gram Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner from his service on 18.05.2000 and oursuant thereof, order of the removal was passed on 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/3)" Non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principies of natura! justice tantamounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Rul®7 of the Rules, 199S but the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of india alsp. The order of removal belng penal in nature, visiting with civil consequences, cannot be passed without hoiding enquiry in accordance with ths elabbrats provisions, as prescribed in Ruie 7 of the Rules, 1S99. It is, thus, dear that the rsspondents have not foilowed the statutory provisions of law before passing the impugned order. !n view of foreaoina. the imouaned orcer dated 16-3-2001 (Annexurs - P/1) passed by the Additional Cotlector, Sarguja, the order dated 23-10-2000 (Annexure - P/8) Divlslonal OfRcer, Ambikapur and the order dated 14-4-2000 (Annexure - P/6) passed by the Sarpanch,are quashed. 12. Accordingiy, {he writ petition is allowed to the extent indieated above. No order asto costs. However, the respondent authorities are at libertv to taks fresh steps in accordance with Rule 7 of the Ruies 1999, ifso advised. Sd/- Satish K. AgnihoSri Gowri Judse