\ \ r HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 424 of 2006 PeUtioner : KamalSay Vereus Respondents The State ofChhattisgarh and trthers Postfororderon ^April,11,2007 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNo. 424 of 2006 Petitioner Respondents Kamal Say S/o Saryu Ram, age 21 years, Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) Gram Panchayat Madanpur, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surguja, C.G. Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G.) 2 Gram Panchayat Madanpur, ttirough Sarpanch, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surguja, C.G. 3 Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social WeUare, Surguja, At/Post Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Surajpur, District Surguja, C.G. WRIT PETITtON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Jusfice Shri Satish K. Agnihofri Present: Mr.A.K. Prasad, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the respondente No. 1 and 3/State. Noneappears for respondent No. 2. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, counsel for the respondent No. 4. ORDER (Passed on this 5<? dayofApril, 2007) By this petition, filed under Article 226 ofthe Constttution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 28.12.2005 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Surguja, whereunder the petitioner was removed from the post of the Panchayat Secretary. The indisputable facls, in nutshell, are that pureuant to the resoluUon dated 5.4.2005, passed by the Gram Panchayat, Madanpur and approved by the Gram Sabha in its meeting, hekl on 18.10.20)5, ttie pet'rtioner was appointBd as Panchayat Karmi vide order dated •e^^S^K^^S^^ ^SSS^K^^s, 22.10.2005 (MnwwePIA). Thereafter, videorderdated 22.105(M35 (Annexure P/6), hewas appointed as Panchayat Secretaryundertfte provisions of Section ^ (1) of the ChhatUsgarh Pancha^t Raj Adhiniyam, 199^(hereinafter referred toas 'the Adhiniyam,1993'). On the basis of some preliminary enquiry held against the prtitioner, he was removed from the post of the Panchayat Secrrtary vkle order dated 28.12.2cx)5 (P/1). 3. Mr. A.K. Prasad, leamed counsel appearing for the peffioner would submit that no opportunity of hearing was affbrded to him and no charge-sheet was issued as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rutes. 1999. Thus, the impugned order is viUated and deserves to te quashed. 4. Mr. Sushil Dubey, leamed Govemment Advocate appearing for the respondents No, 1 and 3 and Wr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 woukl submit that admittedly, no notrce was given to the petitioner, however, a preliminary enquiry was conductsd before passing the impugned order. Thus, there was substantive comptiance ofthe principtes of natural justice and fair play in acUon. 5. The respondent No. 2/Gram Panchayat, Madanpur, in ite retiim dated 5.7.2006, as stated that since ttiere was irregiriarity in the selection/appointment of the petiUoner as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat, Madanpur, he was righUy removed from the office (rf tt»e Panchayat Secretary. 6. After hearing t^rned coureel appearing for the parti^ and perusing the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident ttiat no noh'ce was given to the petitioner. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ PeUtion No. 1656 of 2004 (Rooplal Nayak Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & ottiers) has held that as Y. removal of a Secretary from the post of Gram Panchayat, initially appointedas Panchayat Karmi would be govemed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Disciplfne and Appeal) Rutes, 1999 (for short 'The Rules, 1999'). Wtthdrawal of charge ofthe post of Secretary from the petitloner, being Panchayat Karmi, tantamounts to reduction in rank and since 'reduciton in rank is a major penalty in terms of Rule 5 (b) Ov) of the Rules, 1999, it cannot be imposed Wrthout conducUng a regular departmental enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7ofthe Rules, 1999. 8. It is admitted case that no enquiry was conducted before (»ssingthe impugned order dated 28.12.2005 (Annacure P/1). The impugned action of the respondents tantamonts to removat which is a m^or penalty and the same cannot be imposed wlthout conducfing a regular enquiry. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this petifion is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.12.2005 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. Consequently, the petitioner is entitted to all the benefrts, pecuniary and otherwise. 10. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the RespondenVGram Panchayat or any other respondent, as the case may be, from iniUating the disciplinary action against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law and in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parttes shall bear their owncosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge