tl1Fi!"3ui f "'.'.;1i.'l.l\':.i.'-.^. Ci^ /^/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURIC.G.I WRIT PETITION N0. ^ 3 c^©/2005 PETITIONER Ram Kumar Patel, S/o. Yadram Patel, Aged about 32 years, Secretary-Gram Panchayat Kharwani Bade, Tahsil Sarangarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS .\°?^ ^]^\y ^ /^i^^ '%1^/ ^/:.(^y-J ^y^y ^:^" ^ ^iiagsisr''- ;y „ 11^' ^// r1,-',^ ..—!'-<>w%?7i"n—( ;'Lji: T"S-^ r ''''. E""^\^'' E'~a L^ —'."^ ''tu^F •" ?A^E .6^ < ^'"' -.,^ -T^EtoXG.BILASruS *J f^ ^ 1. State of C.G. Through Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ,2. The Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.). . 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) , 5. SarpEinch, Gram Panchayat Kharwani Bade, Tah. Sarangarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Gram Panchayat Kharwani Bade, Through its Saranch, Tah. Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 7. Firtu Ram Bareth, Sahayak Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) Af=f\ yifittCQURT OF GHHATTISBARM AT BIU^BJB SINGLE BENCH ; HON'aLE IMR.SATISH K. AGNNWTRI. J. Petitioner WRITPETITICffi) NO.%20Q<F2006 RamKumar Patet Versus > Respondents : Stat8of©.G.andothera Present : Mr. Rajew/Shrivastava withMr. Indrasen Sahu, eetinsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Anju Ahuja, E)eputy Government Advocate Tor th® State/respondentsNo.1 to3. Mr. S.N.Nande, counset for raspondents No.5 and 8. None appeafs for respondents No.4and7. ORDER (Passed on 16th Dayof January, 2007) By this petition, the petitiener ctMllengas valtdlty of the order dated 20-4-2005 (Annexure P-2), whersby the petitioner was removed from the postof Panchayat Karmi by a resolution passed by Gram Sabha in its meeting held on 18-4-2805. 2. The indisputabto faets, in nutehelt, ars that the petltioraer was posted as Panchayat Kanitl in Gram Panchayat Kharwani Bade, Tahsil Sarangarh, DistrictRaigarh. Theserviess of the petUioner wa» removed by order dated 20-4-2005 (Annexure P-2) wtthout following proper procedure of law as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Madhya 11SS^LS-^3? Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Panchayat Servtee (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (henceforth 'the Appeal Rules, 1999'). 3. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava with Mr. Indrasen Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitlener, woutd submit that tha impugnad order dated 20-4-2CX)5 (Annexure P-2) te bad and vitiated on ttie ground that the ordar comes within the piBvtew of major psnalty in accordance with Rule 5 of theAppeal Rules, 1999 and no msyor penalty can be imposed without affordlng preper opportunity of hearing to the petitiQner in accordanca wtth the provistons of Rule 7 of the Appeal Rules, 1999. 4. Perconfra, Mr. S.N-Nanito, toarned CQunsetappeariflg for respondents No.5 and 6, woutdsubmitthattha Apfwat Rules, 1^9 are not appticable to the serviees of the petitloner as Panchayat Karmi. Since the pstitioner was appointed as Mansevl, the Appeat Rules, 1999 are not applicable. Learned counsel would further submit that Uie ft4adhya Pradesh/Chhattlsgarh Panchayat Service (Recruftment and General Conditions ofServlces) Rutes,1999 (henceforth 'ttie Recrultment Rules, 1999') are not applicableto the posts virtilch are made on part-time basis and areon cantract basisand the petftioner's appointment was on part-time basis. Learned counset would further submit that alternative remedy is available to tha petltlener before coming to this Courtandassuch.thls petitlon bedismissed. &: Having lieard toarned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and the recocds appended thereto, it is evident that the services of ttte petltionar was removed by th» impugned order dated 20-4-20(ffi (Annexwe P-2) wlthout complytag wtth the statutory prevlsions of Rule7ofttie Appeat Rules. 1999. 6. With regard to service of notice, It is adroitted by learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 te 3 and respondents No.S and 6 that no formal enqulry by framing definite charges on the basis of allegations has been initiated and the petltioner was not served with a charge-sheet as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Appeal Rules, 1999. The petitioner was served with a notice prior to 18-4- 2005, when the Gram Sabha held its meeting and resolved to remove the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. 7. With regard to applicabltity of the Recruitment Rutes, 1999, on perusal of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules, 1^», it is apparent that the Recroitment Rules, 19^ are applicable to all the posts of Zita Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat, but not to Sie posts of Gram Panchayat. The case in hanel is a case of Gram Panchayat. The Appeal Rules, 1999, which provide that tha rutes would be applicabte to all persons employed in connection wlth the aftoirs of Zila Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Gram Panchayat discharglng fte functions of Zila Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, Gram Panchayat; Rule 2(1) of the Appeal Rules, 1999 ctefinss "Member of Panchayat Service" or a "Panchayat Servanf means any person appoiflted te ttie Panchayat Service and includes an officer or servant allocated to the Panchayat Service. The Appeal Rules, 1999 do not disttnguish between the part-ttms Panchayat Karmi or full-time Panchayat Karmi for applicatlon of the Appeal Rules, 1M9. 8. Learned counsel aqapearingfor the parfles would further submitthat this case is squarelycoveredby the etecision ofthisCourt dated 14-11-2006 passed in Jeet ffaro Kurre vs. Stote of Cfthrtffsgarft and others (Writ Petition No.2106 of 2005) and In Dh^wam Kwaria vs. Stote o/C.®.and ofAare1. 9. Having considered alt the aspects of the mattor, admittedty, this case is covered by fhe (tecision of thls Court as above-mentioned. *- 10. For the reasons and the discussions made hereinabove and the dicta laid down by this Court in aforestated cases, the orderof termination dated 20-4-2005 (Annexure P-2) is bad and is qyashed. 11. On the question of back wages, no tounttation has been laid to establish the fact that whether the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere or not during this period. Even etherwise, keeping in view that the termination order has been vitiated not on merit, but, on account of non-compliance of the statutofy provisions before terminatlng the services of the petitionBr, 30% back wages Would besufficient in the interest ofjustice. 12. costs. The writ petition is aceordingly allowed. No order as to Sd/- Satish K. Agnifeoai Judge '^tJial 2006 (2) C.G.L.J. 186