&^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 135 D.B: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. SB HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA. J. Writ Anpeal No. 66 of 2007 Santu Ram Markam Vs. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Palli and others JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRUUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA 5 ^^/\-(2^-' Sd/- Chief Justice Postfor 2.0 .06.2008 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 136 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON>BLE SHRI RAJEBV GUPTA, C.J., HON»BLESHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J WRIT APPEAL No. 66 of 2007 APPELLANT/ PETITIONER Santu Ram Markam, S/o Budh Nath Markam, aged about 25 years, at present working as Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Palli, Resident of Village: Palli, Block Development, Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (C.G). Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Palli, Block Development, Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (C.G). 2 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Block Development Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (C.G). 3 Tansukh Ram Netam, S/o Janglu Ram Netam, R/o Village Palli, Tahsil : Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (C.G). 4 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (C.G). 5 Addl. Collector, Narayanpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(lt OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHt ACT 2006. -^ Appearance: Shri Vishnu Koshta, Counsel for the Appellant. None for respondents no.l 85 2. Shri Prafull Bharat, counsel for respondent no.3. Shri J.K. Gilda, Additional Advocate General for the state/ respondents No.4 & 5. •/:^i/'m% "^, Writ Appeal No.66 of 2007 1 JUDGMENT (^.0.06.2008) The following judgment ofthe Court was delivered by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, (1) Being aggrieved with the order dated 02.02.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) No.636/ 2007, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, the appellant/ petitionerhas preferred this writ appeal. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are that respondent no.3 was working as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Palli, Tahsil Kondagaon (Bastar). He was removed by the General Body of the Gram Panchayat in its meeting dated 14.7.2004. The order of removal was approved by Gram Sabha in its meeting held on 20.7.2004. As a consequence of vacancy arose, the petitioner was appointed as the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.3 challenged his removal by filing an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer under Rule 3 of the M.P(C.G) Panchayat (Appeal 8& Revision) Rules 1995 (for brevity "Rules 1995"). The appeal was allowed by order dated 02.5.2005 and the order of removal of respondent no.3 from the post of secretary was set aside directing his reinstatement. Being aggrieved with the order dated 02.5.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the said appeal preferred by respondent no.3, the petitioner filed another appeal before the Addl. Collector, Narayanpur, Distt. Bastar. In the said appeal, an interim order of stay was also granted on 28.9.2005. However, this interim order was vacated on 22.12.2006 and the appeal itselfwas also dismissed. The petitioner in writ petition challenged the ^validity of order dated 02.5.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Writ Appeal No.66 of 2007 ^'M t ^- 1^8 ^.,/-' ^ Officer as also the order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Additional Collector. The learned single judge after hearing the writ petition dismissed the same on many grounds including that the removal of Panchayat Secretaries are governed by Rule 7 of the M.P(C.G) Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for brevity <(Rules 1999W) which is based on basic principles of naturaljustice. Rule 7 ofthe Rules 1999 provides for basic right of an eniployee who is terminated from his servrice without following due process of law and principles of natural justice. It was impliedly held by the learned single Judge that Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules of 1999 was not followed in the case of removal of respondent no.3. It was held that appointment of the petitioner was made when dispute with regard to removal of the respondent no.3 was pending adjudication before superior authorities, therefore, as a settled principle, any decision of appointment taken during adjudication was subject to final decision of the Authority/ Tribunal and the removal of the petitioner as a consequence of reinstatement of respondent no.3 was in accordance with law. (3) Shri Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned single Judge erred in holding that the appeal was still pending before the Addl. Collector whereas the appeal was finally disposed of and the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground. He also argued that in fact the final removal of the respondent no.3 was by Gram Sabha, therefore, the appeal preferred before Sub-Divisional Officer was not maintainable. He also argued that the reason assigned for allowing the appeal was not proper. Writ Appeal No.66 of 2007 139 •" (4) On the other hand, Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for respondent no.3, argued -that respondent no.3 was Secretary of Gram Panchayat and his removal was not possible without following the procedure laid down under the Rules of 1999, therefore, the removal was rightly set aside though such reasons have not been recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer. (5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ appeal. (6) Shri Koshta has not disputed that respondent no.3 was working as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Palli when he was removed by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat in its general body meeting. The first question arises as to whether such removal by the Panchayat was possible in view of the provisions of Section 69(1) of M.P(C.G) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1993) read with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 ? In the matter of Prakash Chandra Patet -Vs- State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2004 Law Times (C^G) Pa.142 and in W.P.No. 1656/2004 as also in W.P.No.2356 of 2004 (Brindwan Vishwakarma -Vs- State of C.G) and W.P.No.1451 of 2004 (Gendlal Kobragade—Vs-State of C.G) it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the Rules of 1999 were applicable in case of Panchayat Karmis who were also conferred with the powers of Panchayat Secretary u/s 69(1) of the Act and while imposing the penalty like the present one, a substantial compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was required, failing which, such orders would not be sustained. Writ Appeal No.66 of 2007 m~~ ^ ."^ 140 (7) Mr. Koshta has not disputed that removal of respondent no.3 was not done in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules of 1999 and he was simply removed by a resolution/order passed by the Gram Panchayat which was confirmed by the Gram Sabha. Therefore, in our considered view, the removal of respondent no.3 from the post of Panchayat Secretary was not in accordance with law and the same was rightly set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer. (8) As far as the argument regarding the order passed by the Gram Sabha is concerned, the same has no force. Mr. Koshta, could not show us any provision, according to which, the order of removal of the Secretary was required to be approved by Gram Sabha. In fact, the substantial order regarding removal of respondent no.3 was passed by Gram Panchayat and the same was rightly challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer under the provisions ofRules of 1995. (9) So far as not giving proper reasons for setting aside the removal by the appellate authority are concerned, suffice it to say that if the order itself is justified in all manners, the reasons can be supplemented and there is hardly any prohibition for the same. We do not find any force in this argument also. (10) Lastly about the mentioning by the learned single judge that appeal before the Addl. Collector is still pending, Mr. Koshta is correct that it was a wrong mentioning by the learned single Judge because the appeal was finally disposed of by the Addl. Collector by order dated 22.12.2006. But in our considered opinion this v' [ cannot be a ground to set aside the order or fo allow the writ "/1> ,^.^^^, f£^"% j ^ 1'"^ I ^ ^J / Writ Appeal No.66 of 2007 ^!&st"'IL^ •^%2-K^/' ^- Ul appeal. Even the remand of the writ petition on this ground alone to the single Judge is not going to give any fruitful yield to the appellant/petitioner because the removal of respondent no.3 was otherwise not proper in view of the provisions of Rules of 1999. (11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao