@/ § M? 1Q £iiy§ig gm zwgéfyai IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITON gS! No.9 22‘0/ 2009 PETITIONER : Kailash Narayan, S/o Dhaneshwar Prasad Yadav, aged about 32 years, R/o Neechepara, Ward No. 12, Dharmjaygarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus v‘gQ 9~ aw‘ RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Deputy Director, Department of Panchayat, Raigarh (C.G.) /. 3. CollectOr, Raigarh (CVG;) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dharmj aigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.\0 I RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON‘STITUTION OF INDIA Mall W Single Bench: _Hon’b!eM Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J. ‘ Writ Petman i3; Nojzzwzaw Kailash Nar&yan Versus PETgTiGNER: RESPGN§ENT3: State of Chham'sgarh and athers W of t m ri: Petition under Article 225 he Constiwi‘éon cf “m ' Present: Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, counsel for the petiticner. Shri Shri Akhitesh Chandresh Kumar, Shrivastava, counsel Pane! for respondent Lawyer for No.4. the State/respondent3 No.1 to 3. ORALORDER (Passed on 39th June, 2010) With the consent of teamed counset for the parties, the matter i3 heart; fmatty. (2) Grievance of the petitioner as set out in the petition ie that White the petitioner was working es Secretary ef Gram Pantheyat—Jamragi armi hoiding additionai charge of the effice 0f Secretary of Gram Panchayat—Lexmipur, en certain eileg atione . with regarc! te distribution of rice to the oer pereoris, ihe Chief Executive Officer peseed an order on 17-09-2009(Anhexure P-i), by which, charge of the ofhce “of Secretary of Gram Panchayat-Jamregi and Gram Panchayat—Laxmipur was handed over to the different persons without there being any authority with the Chief Executive Gffioer to pass such an order. it is eubmitted that later on, the petitioner was granted hail by the Soon oi ‘ competent jurisdiction vide order dated 22-0Q-2009 (Annexure P-2), and thereafter, the Chief Executive Qificer vicie memo dated 25-09-200Q (Annexure P-3) sought instructions from the Coiiector. The petitioner eieo submitted e -il 1‘ represegtation an 01-10-2009 befare the Chief Executive Officer {hat he shaulrj be giverx the charge of the office of the Secretary of the abovementiened We Gram Panchayats. Vide order dated 28-10-2009 (Annexure P-S), the Tahsitdar paseed an er'der sf pasting of the petitioner in Eiection Branch at Dharamg‘aigarh ih his capacty as Panayat Karmi. Awarding e the petiticner, posting of the ptitiener as Panchayat Karmi was for the iimited pgasee er rforming eieCtion duties and es the eiectiens were or, the petitioner mae anter ve d oh repreeehtation on 0641-2009 {Annexre P-7) to the Deputy Director ciaiming u hat charge of the eiiiee of the Secretar may be reetore to im. t y d h (3) Learned ceunsei for the etitioner eubitted that the appointing auory p m thit sf the fice ef Seoretery is the Deputy Direotor, as he ie Llme ereeriee of ob authority by virtue of notification issued by the State Government uner eetioh d S 69 of the Chhattisgarh Penohayet Rj Adhiniyam, 93 (tn ehort “the a $ Adhihiyem, 1993 ‘ ane thefore, the Cief Executive Ctfcer, ehpao Panchayat, Dheremjaigarh, had no jurisdiction to pass the order ated 7-w- 2009 giving charge of the oftiee of $eoretary to some other pereon, Whieh in fact, emeunte to withdrawing charge from the petitioner. The other sobmieeio ’ n is that tater on‘ the petitioner was poted as Panchayat Karmi in Eleeti Branch at Dharemiaigarh vide order dated 28-10-2009, but no the eie‘otion w rk is over and in sp of representation being made, he is not being Sent wo ite beck. Laeti, it is submitted by teamed counsel t.or ethe petitioner that L he lnee y neither been suspeded nor any charge sheet has been given to im nor any n h departmentei enquiry is heid or pending against him. (4 io f No ) On the other hand, submissn of learned counsel or respondents .1 to 3 is that the inst pition is not ainainable as the persons to whom the ant et mt charges were handed over have not been impleaded as parties'end even Gram Panoheyat Jamragi nd Gram Panohayat Laxmipur have not oeen rrayed as a ‘ a i ch t e ure f pe " er h t‘i J‘ d 1 s oo respond$nta ii is also stated that the petitioner has alternative remedy 6f preferrmg an appeal against the arder'dated 17-09-2009 under theprovisians a? , the Adhimyam, 1993 and witheu% availmg sush remedy, ihe pei§%i0nar ha$ apprsashed this Cam. !t is naxt submitted that as Jaiipazi Panshayat has admiaisi‘raiive soairoi we? Gram Panchayat and faking into cansitieraiion ins FIR was iadgaci an sartain aiiegations of iireguiantiss, therefore, in ins interssi , sf administrationnne Chief Exesui‘ive Offissr passed the immigned ‘arder‘ ii: is aisa saismitted ihai ins petitioner’s right as a secretary has net bsen infringsd. {5) Snbmission sf learned counsei fer respendent No.4 3s tnaf ihe impugnecj urder is appeaiable, and furiher that the peiitioner‘s rright to work as Sesietary and t0 saianj has not been infringed, but oniy in View of the serious aliegaiiens and FIR against the petitioner, arrangement was made by the Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 17-09-200g. (6) Chaiienge to the authority of the Chief Executive Grfieer to metre arrangement vide impugned order dated 17-09-2009 {Annexur'e Pvt) i3 en the i basis that the Deputy Director is the prescribed authority under $eetion 68 e) the Adhiniyarn. 1993, to make appointment on the poet of Secretaryg anti therefore, any such erder of this nature as contained in order dated W-OQ-Xittti (Annexure P-i) couid not be passed by the Chief Executive Qtticer. Though, iearned State ceunset'does not dispute that in exercise of powers centerred Lrnder Section 59 of the Adhiniyam,19§3. the Deputy Director has been deeiared as a prescribed authority. there are no pieadings nor any doouments have been tiied by the petitioner to show that he was appointed as $eoretary by the order of the Deputy Director. There is no material on record to Show as to under What arrangement, the petitioner was appointed as a Secretary and by whom. Moreover, though the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17—OQ~ §© +q~ 2009 (Annexure P4), the persans t0 whom the charges have been handed ‘ over have not been §mpleaded as partées, .in spite of specific objection being raised by the ieamed counsei for the respondents in their ‘iepiy. it is also noted that the petiiioner has fiied this petition on 23-1 1n2009, after he was posted in Eiectien Braneh Vide erder dated 28-10-2009 passed by the Tahsiid‘art The aforesaid order of posting was not under chatlenge by the petitioneri {7) in this View of the mattet, the relevant basic facts withregard to appeintment order on the post of Secretary being not pleaded nor breught on reeerd, relief claimed by the petitioner in this petition cannet be granted. The petitioner has submitted a representation to the Deputy Director on 05-1 1-2609. it wcuid be open for the Deputy Director to consider the said representation and take appropriate deeision in’ the matter‘ in accordance with law. (8) With the aforesaid observation, the petition-is finally disposed of. ’”#g"’y-‘#’g~#_,~_e~e5;::a ,, San r Manindra Mohan ‘Shrivastava Juage ’ l eqww“”(