HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR R Writ Petition N0. 2776 Qf 2003 Petitianer: Gukul Ram Nishad aged about 42 years, S/o Premlal Nishad, R/ o Village.Medha Post Axjuni, Thana & Tehsil Dongargaon, Distn'ct-Rajnandgaon (C. G‘} 1. Th6 State of Chhattisgarh, through Sacretary, Panchayat 6t. Rural Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Versus Respondents: 2. The CoHecto.§‘;5’1?ya‘jnandgaon. 3. Chief EXecuiive Oiiicer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon (QGJ 4. The Sarpanch, Gram ' Panchayat, Singarpur, and 2. Shli Sandeep Dubey, Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C; G.) Simgle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihatri. Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. , Govt. Advocate, for the Respondents No. 1 Shri Ram Kn'shna Shanna, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Shn‘ Kasif Shakeel, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER .(18'th Januaiy, 2006) The following order of the‘Court was pasged by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Kamii Thereafter by 1), passed by .),~ in exercise of his power under Section 69 (1) of the M.P./C.G. Panch Adhiniyam, 1993, he Panchayat, virtue of order dated 18.06.199’? (Annexure P- Collector, Rajnandgoan (C.G ayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj was appointed as Secretary, Gram Singarpur. The Gram Sabha, ‘Singarpur, by its resolution dated 18.12.2092 (Annexure P—6) resolved to remove 111% pgtitiongr from the. past of Panchayat Kanni, {t is Submitmci that tha pétitioner submits that thi: petitioner was not allowed themaftttr to wark as Ranchayat Karmi. Being aggriexmd, the p€titioner has. flled this patiu'on impugning the. resolution dated 18.122002 (Amioxui‘s P-6) praying mat tho patitionor ho allowed to work as Panchayat Kaxmi. 0i Shii Parag Kotecha, harmed counsol for the patitionor, submits that the: yotitioner has been rcmoved from 1gi§)senrices as Paiiohayat Karmi without complyillg the mandatory statutory provisions of Rule. 7 of the. M.P.,’C.G. Pagchayat Sewics (Discipliile and Appoal) Rules, 1999‘ 3. Shri Kasif Shakeel, learned counsel for‘ the respondent No. 4 submits that resolution cannot be binding till arr order as contemplated under Rule 6 is passed by the disciplinary authority or any authority to Whom such authority is subordinate. In the preseut case, no order of removal has been paseed by the competerit authority arid ae such this petition is premature, 4V Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Noy 1 and 2 submits that the State Govemniyent by its circular dated 8. 10,2001 (Annexure P-7), has made it olear to all the Collectors and all the Chief Executive Ohicers that no order removing Parichayat Karmi hom his services shall be passed Without holding proper enquiry aiid it was further stated that orovisions of Rule '7 of M.P.{(‘3.G, Pauchayat Service (Discipline aiid Appeal) Rules, 1999, he complied with strictly in its letter aiid spirit. K IT} 5. I haw heard learncd counsel for the. partias and perused tht: records appended to the petition as wan as the return, tiled by the respondents. i i § 6, Admittedly, resolutions camlot be challenged in revision or i appearing for the respondent No. 4 that no resolution, passed by a Gram Sabha has binding eil'eot until a proper order as contemplated under Rule 6 is passed by the competent authority, the action of the respondent was bad by not 7pennitting the petitioner to work. In the present case no order for removal has been passed by any competent authority as contemplated under Rule 6 of the MP. I C.G. Panehayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. However, in the facts of the ease, when by virtue of resolution dated 18.12.2002 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner has been restrained from working as Panchayat Karmi and he has not appeal. In View of the submissions made by learned counsel ,y- been paid any Salary for the same, the respondent No. 4 is 4/ directed to allow the petitioner to Work as Panchayat Karmi till proper order as contemplated under Rule 6 is passed by the competent authority. The petitioner will he entitled to his salary for the period when he was restrained by respondent No. 4 from working on the post of Panchayat Karmi. Q" For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/. satiSh K- Agnihom' Judge Arun