.•f.-t*-^;!.;'"^' s*^i':si!3!iBtifsi;f«^lEgt. Wtlt Petitfon No. 156 of2000 Jaotai^n S/o P_am.i.^:?han affed about 38 vears Cast Mahra. workiiig ?.g Secretflr3^ (Panchsyat Kart'Iii), Gra!ii Paiichayat Kur!", Village Jano Tahsil Saja, Distt. Diirg (CG). 1S.T,RSTTS 1. State ofM.P. tl?roiioh Secrctarv Panchavat & Gramin Vik^.s. Bhopa!. 2. Deputy Director Panehayat and Samaj Kalya'i, Diirg. 3. Collector, Distt. Diirg, Diirg. 4. Chief Executive OiBcer, Janpad Panchayat SAJA, Tahsil Saja, Distt. Diirg. UVRTT PETmON T.JNDRR ARTTCLE 7.76mi OF THE CONSTm-mON OF TNDIA) rSB: Hon'hie Mr. Satisb IC AanJhotn, .T.) Prei-ierit. • Shi'i YogesSi Pandev. Advocnte for the petitioner. Slii'i Alok Baklishi, Govt. Advocaie for tiie State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22n<i ofApiiI, 2008) With the conscnt oftbe narties^ the matter is taken IID for hearin^ fui^ih''. 1 - The petitioner ^fas appointed fts Panchayat Kanitii in Gratii Panchayat KurliL Distt. Durg (CG) oc 06.12. 1995. Tlie petitioner was tenTiinated from the post ofPanchayatKaniiibyorderdated24.12.1999 (Amie3aireP/3),passedbythe Dept'ty Direetor (Panchayat) at the instance of Collector, Diirg. T!ie saiiie was served on the petitioner on 27.12.1999. 2. !t i$ adniitted f^ict that there ^¥as no disciplin^^ enqiiiry as conteiiiplated iinder the provisions of nilc 7 of ^'LP./C-G. Panch^y^t Scn^icc (Discipi!ne and .A.noeaH Riiles- 1999 Cfor short the Ruies. 1999".. 3. Sliri Alok Bakhshi- L^ained coiiiise! ano^afin^ forthe Stats/resDondenf No. 1,1 and 3 stibniits that adjnittedly; thore' was no €>nqui?y with regard to aileged RnssicwA <rregiilaritieg coiTnnitted by the petitioaer, before the inipugiied order dated 24.12. 1999 was passed, ^|ss^^;^I^^^Si^^S^^^^ iA-;-, tfi';3H5WsiKiijai^s!^!,fi,, ^-esSs^.s^s4' Sahu 4 The question involved in fliis petitio" asto whether services ofa Panchayat Kamii caii be teniiinated without afK>rdiiig proper opporlitnity of hearing &s contenwlsted undcT the orovisions of* nile 7 offhe Rules. 1999. h^s been consideirc<^ bv this Court in the inatter of Frakash Chandra P9.td v. State of •o++^CTIc«>**^ >-»vi--l /vt-U^»*i-t^ T^Unlnmy" TT^nn.-fOT. TT C1-f-ifl+.^ n-p ^t^lT-fH-^ctfvo+4^ ':~>-f">/^ 'h./AAi.Al.i.fcLJlO^&tA 11 tAAJttA </U.AWl iS ^ J-/ilitU.UA «A.tAl ^.^.t^iaUJl XtA V • tjrfcU.fc^- \/J. ^/^AI.AtA.t.Ll.O^tU. 11. <U.f\* <p I'Tt^+^^'"' T-^/~^;^<TCrt-l^l T? rt<^V^ TT ^•£'n'fr/-\ /^.4- ^1Ufr^rt+tr<^i /^o-t^t^ r^yi/^ /vt-^^-t^n ^•flir^ ;-^+U n»y <if-^TT/'^t*'^ ^'il-i.l.^/i.iS 5 A-fW^'^UjLi ^.VtAilAA ». t_I EAt.*-^- V/A •</AAt.A<*t.^AO^t**. ±A t.i.AA.t-t tj'ILAi^Ai-; 5 (AAAt^t UU-A^A i3WVt^i-<AA cases. 5. For thc re^sons ?in^ diseussions o''Rde hereinabove- thc t^niiin^-tion ordc'r dated '24.12-99 fA?mexiire P/3) is bad and is ouashed. 6. With regard to questio" of backwages, no foundation has been laid to estab!ish tfae fact that, whether the petitioner was gauifiiUy employed ekewhere or nof durins this oeriod. The netitioner was teniriiiated <n December, 1999. The petitioner has not pleaded in tl'iis petition that he was not gaii'rflilly employcd elsewherc. Thus, thc petitiosicT is not cntitled to fiill b?ick'^^''aRcs. Bi ^rifW ofthe fhcts th^t ^TaiTt ofb^ckwsge^ iT>av C3u^e financisl oroblems fbr tlic Grani Panchavat. It ^ exDcdicnt that thc oetitioncr be j--^^-.-—^.-.-.-- .„-- .--..-^^. ^ ^—-^^—^-...J -. .-- .. .-^-.......-^__- .-.--.- .^^- ^.-.--.--.^.^--» ^- orantp;^ 70 n^rr'^nt Kscl^^soes in'ti'ii?1 irste'T^.Ki o^instice- 7. Accordin^h/\ the '^Trit Detition i^ allowed aiid the ordcr dated 24.12-99 (Aiinexiire P/3) tcrminating the g^rviccs of thc petitioncr is ^iiashed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 2004 L.T. (CG) 142 2 2006 L.T. (CG) 106 3700fiT,.T. (CG'f 41