IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDXCAIURE AE BILA$PURLC.G. W.P. No. ' 2003 PETITIONER VERSUS 4 ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22 /227 OF THE CON$TITUTION\OF INDIA 1) As mentioned in the cause title above. 2) Particulars of the Respondents As mentioned in the cause title above. (WW Qimghg U r»mm§i Dayashankarr Bahu , 5/0 W Devsha ran Sahu, aged about i8 years , occupation agri cultu'ure y R/o Vi l 1a ge Chan drapur, Tahsi l ; ¢ Surajpur, Distt .Surguja (C . G.) . State of Chhattisgar through Secretary, Panchayat Depa-rtmert D.K.‘S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) . Chief Executive E efficer, Janpad > Panchayat Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur, ‘Distt.Surguja c.G.). t Ram Giran Singh' S/o'ParshL'Lram Singh, aged about 3O years) occupation eX—sariian’ch, R/o tillage Chandrapur, Tahsil » Surajpur. Distt.Surguja§C.G-) - SuhhaSChancira Bansal, S/o ’I‘elu Ram Bansal, aged about 50 years, occunation Up—sarpanch; R/o village Chardrapur. Tahsil Surajpur. Distt. Surguja(C.G) Sukhra'j S/o Sayani Ram, aged about 60 years, occupation agriculture, R/o village Champak Nagar, .‘I‘ahsil Surajpur, Distt.Surguja (C.G.) . The Collector, Surguja, (Nubikapur) CgQoLj €V/ r” ‘/ a h ( i XI—HC—22 21 3.2006 ShYi A‘KShukla, comm! :1 far the p€titionet Shn' Arum Sac, Govannmc‘nt Advocafe for the Sfate] rsspondents 1, and 6. Shri Rahul Mishra, 0011’ we] for Respondents No.3) 4 c°m 5. None for respondent No, Heard. finally with the. c‘ Order dictated as follow 0 ms€nt of the parties. Si ORDER - Dayashankar Sahu, who was Th6 petitionm‘, mama] Karmi of Gram Panchayat, r, Distrcit-Sm‘guja (CG) and was Iry of fhe said Gram Panchayat by d his removai on account of a- m Sabha, contained in AnneXure nged fhe order passed by the appellate authority on 28.2.2003 appointed a5 a Panchaya. Chandrapur, Tehsil Surajpu later 011, daclamd a5: a Secret; the Collector, has Challenge resoluti'on pasaed by the Grs P—L He has further chalk Collector in the capacity of (Annexnre 13—6). The bn'ef facts are that Panchayat Karmi 0f Gram PE (Annexure 13-2). Later on, he aforesaid Gram Pauchayat bj by the Collector, Surguja in under Section 69 (1) of the this petitioner was appointed as a ruchyat Chand rapur on 21.8. 1096V ‘was declared as a Secretary of the r an order;ated 7.8.1999, passer? exercise of his powers, conferred Panohayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 ’ XI—HC—22 Jr £3 ) mm WW (Annexure P—3). It appaars Pauchayat datad 20. 11.200 the post of Panchayat Kan issued by the Saqaanch of t1 Against the aforesaid resolu Panchayat and Sarpanch, t the Sub—Divisional Ofl‘icel 893'2001 -2002. This appeal TaSolutiou, passed by the passed by the Sarpanch n from the poet of Panchayat Against the said order passled by the S.D.O., the Sarpanch of Grain Pancllayat preferred an appeal. before the Collector Vide case No. 45—Aj89,’ 2002-20tl3. This appeal was decided by an xu‘re P—6). This appeal was allowed ded a finding that the order of the ever, it was dixeeted that a Special called and the. proposal in relation to removal of the petitioned be considered in the said Meeting and appropriate steps shoiild be taken. While passing the aforesaid order, the Colleotor, observed and confirmed the where the petitioner has been removed form his post, the provisions contained in MP and Appeal) Rules, 1999 Wine not followed. It is after this/,ff/f order dated 28 . 2 . 2003(A1me in part. The Collectar recm 8.13.0. is kept as it is. How Meeting of Gram Sabha be that by a resolution. of the Gram 1, the petitioner was removed from bi and an order to this effect was he Gram Panchayat on 30. 1 1.2001, tiou and Cider, passed. by the Gram he petitioner filed an appea1 before r vide Revenue Appeal No.3—A,’ was decided. on 15.4.20G2 and the Panehayat as well as the order egardin'g removal of the petitioner Karmi was set aside by the S.D.O. in the matter like the present one, , findings) of the 8.13.0. that (C.G.)Panehayat Seivice (Discipline XI—HC—22 mm WW mmatw ~3 A WW§WW éaaqf—rEwm order’ on 28.2.2003J OL Meeting of Gram Sabha was convened and in th€ said Mt"€fiug, th€ patiu'oner was removal as per msolufion dated 7.6.2Q03, contained 1'11 Annexuro P-l. Loarnod counsel for tho petitioner submits that the vsmova] from the post of Pan shayat Karmi/ Secretary is a major pénalty, defined under R1116 5 of the aforesaid Rules of 1999 and for imposing such a penalty, Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules was required to be. followed. His submission, is that neither the earlier order nor the subset 1ent resolution. of removal of the petitioner, are in accordanc‘ with law as the same have been passed Without. following n cessary procedure as envisaged under Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules. Neither the State nor he private respondents have filed their returns in this case. The return on behalf of Chief Executive Officer (respond nt. No.2) has only been. filed. Nothing has been pleaded in the said return about. the applicability of Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules regarding removal of the petitioner, So far as the legal position in this regard is concerned, it has been held in the mattei of Prakash Chandra Patel Vs. State of Chhattisqarh a . others, reported in 2004 Law Times (C.G.) Pq.142 and also in W.P.No.1656/2004 the Division Bench decision of this Court, and further in W.P.Na.2356/2004, a decision passed by this Court that for removal of the Panchayat KannilSeeretary, who has later’og/ ,1LJ e r b€€n declared as 1116. S€cre1ary of the Gram Panchayat under Section 69 (1) 0f the aforaszaid Act, th€ procedure laid d0w11 under Ru1€ 7 of the aforasaid RHIBS, rare. required. to be followed. The grievance ramed hy the writ petitioner in this petition is squarely covered with the above decisions of the Single Bench as well as Division Bench of this Court. In the result, this petition. is allowed. The resolution about nemoval of the petitioner, passed in. Annexure P-l is: hereby quashed. It is stated that. the petitioner was removed in the month of June 2003 and he was reinstated in the month of March 2004 and as an aifect of the said order, the remuneration in between this period has not been paid to the petitioner. As a consequence of this order, the petitioner shall be entitled for all the benefits However, if so required, to initiate the disciplinary pro the allegations, made against him in accordance with the provisions of the Rules referred to above. There shall be no order as to cost. the State authorities shall be free ceedings against the petitioner for Sdl- sun“ Kumar Sin-“i Judge sunita (thew) / W, W RJJ; .LIALLJLuJ._L>z;. g $9) XI-HC—22 3aW, Wm, Wm ' ...N€:.l.5.5.3 unWH 2003 m WEST m § $& $ a§$amww&m ~1;# Wm? mwa‘r' § ftcR‘T ma %Wm $m$a%a