/ ^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. /" W. P. No. Lic L- /' / 2003 / PETITIONER ,, Sudarshan Behra, son of Shri ,/' Lalbahadur Behra, aged about 29 years, reaident of village- Ghochal, Tah. Dhararajaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RESPONDENTS n. ..^^^ •* ' /<*' ^y. /• ^-s*'" .-• ^y..-"" 'y^-sy'' ^0' .,<^y-' ^^) ^" ,^ &»' 2. 13. ^ 5. State of Chhattisgarh, through : Secretaiy, Department of Village and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhaw.'an, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) District Collector, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) The Sub Divisional Dharamjaigarh, Distt. (Chhattisgarh). Officer, Raigarh The Chief Executive Officer, Janp d Panchayat, Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Chaniar Singh Rathiya, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhojpur, Tah. Dhararajaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). WRFL __PETITION_ UNDR ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE,X)F WRn- IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORA.RI AND/OR ANY OTHER WRIT LIKE NATURE. aa XI-HC-22 31)^1 ?iT fc-ti'* 311^1 sti+ii^ v^ •T5? -!<WM<<, ^Tfl'y'lli, f«<MI'M'i< 111CTI 9)*liq» ^•-^•^{•^-•^ SII^tTOIIW^lftCT u Shri A.N. Bhakia, counse! forth Shri Sanjay S. Agrawai, Govtj No.1 to 3. Shri Ranbir Singh, counsei for| None for respondent No.5. Heard leamed counse! forthe! The petitioner has preferred ti^i the Constitution of india, questioningl of the resoiution dated 29.8.2001 p^s 5.9.2001, and the tetter Issued by th^ petitioner's sen/ices have been termir|< Admittedly, the petiiioner Panchayat: Bhojpur since October, passed by the Gram Sabha, the pet|t Secretary of Gram Panchayat. Beife passed by the Gram Sabha the petif Sub Divisional Officer, Dharamjaigar^. The patitioner's main grievanc) of Panchayat Karmi without foUav^ Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rulefe enqulrywas conducted against the pe( the Rules, 1998. Sub-rule (1) ofRule| "Afo orefer, anposing on a my of the penalties specffied) (E^i ee 'til^Icl'iil-l iltMdf'? fs'^1 <fa(<l< ^aifigitaii^r ie petitioner. Advocate for Shs respondent No.4. State/ resDondenis |is writ petition under Articie 226/227 of |the legaiiiy, propriety and correctness ^ssed by the Gram Sabha issued on Coilector on 28.8.2001, whereby the lated. ifvas worUng as Secretary, Gram 1695. Vi i.20( it|tioner was removed from the post of ig aggrieved by the above resoiutlon |ioner preferred an appea! before the |. The S.D.O. dismissed the appeai, ;^ is that he was removed from the post |ng the procedure as envisaged in Qiscipllne and Appeal) Rules, 1999 199S'). it Is admitted facS that no (itionerfor misconduct as envisaged in |7 says that of the Panchayat Setvlce, in ciause (iv) to (via) of nsle XI-HC-22 -3^3 -t||*llcl<), ri-dl'yiii, fa'ni'yy sn^t'qsT ^ara-aii^r StiHict> ^f?ct Barve/Soma Sf^f W^K »ii*<?fTgi*<ttti fa<)<CT" may be, in the mamer herein^ner provided. Sub-ruie (2) of Rule 7 envisages that "When an order for formal\ discipiinary auttmrity stiall of aliegations and shai! coroml fte stotement of the alieg^ Panchayat Sefyice and aiso time as may be spec-ffied a a/so to state whetherhe desi, Inquiry has been made, the a?he Definite charges on the basis m'scate such charges, a!ongwith K/ons, to fte member of tlw r^quire him to submit, wWnsuch Wntten staternent ofdefence and ir^s to be heard in person." Sub-Rules (3), (4), (5), (6), further prescribe the procedure to bq penaity specified in clause (iv) to (via], !t is an admitted position that petitioner before removing him from| Ruie 7 ofthe Rules, 1998. TherefoN dated 29.8.2001 removing the petitio!| is iiabie to be quashed. !n She circumsSances, the impi| made ciear that the respondents are| enquir/ on the misconduct ofthe petitj With the above observations disposeds^. Parties are entitled for certifiea'l <*l'!<!<'f'41-f t<|t(aT'^feA<(5i»s^ ^ aafiaiT 3D^t formal inqulry is tieid as far as (|7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of Rute 7 foitowed before imposing any major W enquiry was conducted against the |the post of Panchayat Karmi as per i, on this ground, the impugned order |er from the post of Panchayat Karml ^ned order is quashed |not preciuded from |oner as envisaged in and dirsction, the I. However.rtis conducting fresh •Ruies,1999. -saF L.C 3udge [^% ^Pa^