HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4450 of2005 PETITIONER : Keshav Prasad Paiel aged about 36 years son of Slm Kush Ram Patel Sacxv/Panchayat Karim Gram Panchayat- Chllkaguda, Janpad Panchayat Gharghoda’ Tah Gharghoda, Dlstt Rmgarh, Pennancnt rc<1dcnt of vxllagc Bhengam Pot Nawapara Teuda Tah Gharghoda§ D1s11 Rmgarh (CG) , VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l. The State of Chhattisgar’h’ through Secretzuy, Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Deputy Dlrectm Panchayat and Soctal Welfare D1str1ct Raigarh (Chhattlsgarh) 3. The Chief Executlvc Oiiiccr Janpad Panchayat Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 4’ Gram Panchayat Chjlkaguda Janpad Panchayat Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (_SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnilmtri, J.) Present : Shri AN Bhakm Advocate for the peuuoner Shn AS Kachhwaha Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No 1 & 2 Shn Suml Sahu Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 01“ of February, 2008) {o 1. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Panehayat Karmi at Chilkaguda, Janpad Panchayat Gharghoda, Tah. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, by resolution dated 27.10.1995 (Annexure P/9). The petitioner was lbrther appointed as Panchayat Secretary in accordance with provisions of Section 69 of Chhattisgarh Panehayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinaiter referred to as the ‘Adhiniyam, 1993'). By order dated 27.08.2005 (Annexure P/l) the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi"(Secretary) was cancelled. The petitioner has impugied the said cancellation order dated 37.08.2005 in this petition on the gound that the impugned order canceling the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panehayat Karmi r (Secretary) was passed without following tha provisions enshrined in Rule 7 ofthe Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules; 1999 (in short Rules, 1999), 2. Leamed counsel iin‘ther submits that Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999 provides for an appropriate formal enquiry ailer &aming definite charge on the basis of allegations along with statements of allegations requiring him to submit a written statement of defence within such a time prescribed by the authority. Learned counsel also submits that the impugted order has been passed in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 for imposing major penalty i.e. dismissal from service as are prescribed under Rule 5(bxvii) ofthe Rules 1999. Shri AS. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate for the State/respondent No. l and 2 and Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that it is true that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi, therealter he was appointed as Panchayat Secretary and was permitted to work till 27.08.2005 as Panchayat Karmi (Secretary). All of sudden the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled without serving any show cause notice and giving proper opportunity ofhearing. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the documents appended to the writ petition as well as to the return tiled by the respondents. This is a case where admittedly there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions of the Rules, 1999. So far availability of alternative remedy is concerned; it is rule of discretion, not of law. In the facts and circumstances ofthe present case, wherein there is clear violation of statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, it is not necessary to dismiss this petition on the gound of availability of r , \ alternative remedy. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the back wages submits that the petitioner was not gainiillly employed elsewhere and this petition has been filed immediately on 06.09.2005. The petitioner has been restrained from working and was deprived salary thereof by illegal conduct of the respondents. The petitioner is entitled to 100% back wages. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that petitioner is not entitled to any back wages on the principle of ‘no work no pay‘. Admittedly, the service of the petitioner was terminated without following the principles of natural justice and also without following the statutory provisions ofthe Rules, 1999. The petitioner was restrained by the conduct of the respondents horn working in service. Thus, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ will not be applicable. In the facts of the case, the petitioner i entitled to 30 % back wages. 6. For the reasons stated above: the impugned order/resolution dated 27.08.2005 (Annemre P/l) is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. No order asto costs. ‘r‘ Sd/— \ §ati$h K. Amman-i Judge ; i {aim s ‘