“CD IN THE HIGH CQUBE OF JUDICATUBE AT BILASPUB (CEHKETISGABHL Wigm . WM WIT PETITION No.2303 OF 2006 £ETIT10NER_:- Vlgav Kumar Toppo, son of N;colus Toppo, aged about 33 years, reQLdent o£ P O & V111 Karaéarl Tad Jasqpurnagar dist. Jasnpurnagar (C Vs. 3ESPON§ENTS z’ 1. State of Caaattlsgarq tarouga' K Secretary, Pancnayat Department D K. Bnavan, Raipur (C G) w‘2. Cnlef Executlve Off¢cer Janpat Pancnayat Manoua dlst. Jasnpurnagar(CG) :§ x’3. Sarpancn, Gram Pancaayat Karadarl Zc G) $ \ Janpat Pancnayat Manora, dlst Jasapur I“ EIT R PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TEE CONSTITUZION OF INDIA \\. /1 A m‘ x HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2903 of 2006 PETITIONER Vijay Kumax Toppo. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : L State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hou’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri J.S.Baraik, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1. None for the respondent No. 2 and 3. ) m ”ORDER ORAL \, (Passed on 23’ day ofMarch, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 nor any representation is made on their behalf. . The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) on 28.10.1995 dated 09.09.2005 (Annexure P/7) passed by (Annexure P/2). Subsequently, by order (Annexure the respondent No.3, services of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi was terminated. The petitioner has impugned the said order in this writ petition on the ground that the impugied order terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat without following the statutory provisions enshrined in Karmi (Secretary) was passed statutory Rule 7 of C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short “the l; Rules”). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Rule 7 provides for detailed for i.e. removal from service. According to the procedure imposing major penalties learned counsel for the petitioner, removal from service comes within the purview of major penalty. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. l submits that admittedly, the procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules was not followed. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.04.2005 (Annexure P/S) and reply thereto was filed. On the basis of show cause notice and reply, the impugned order was passed. a“ 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi. It is not the case of the respondents that the procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules was followed before the impugned order was passed; A Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 25.07.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1656 of 2004, and this Court, in its order dated 15.11.2006, passed in 'W.P. No. 1850 of 2001, have held that Rule 7 of the Rules have to be followed in the case of termination of a Panchayat employee. 5. This Court in Dhaluram Kosqria v. State of C.G. & Others], Beegan Ram v. State of CG. & Othersz, and Prakash Chand Som' v1 State of CG. & Othersi held that the non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justice tantamount to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, but, the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting the civil consequences, cannot be passed without holding the enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. 6. It is thus clear that the respondents have not followed the statutory provisions of law before imposing the major penalty ‘of removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karrni. 7. For the reasons and the discussion made hereinabove, and the dicta laid down by the ‘ Court in various cases (supra), the order dated 09.09.2005 (Annexure P/7), is vitiated and is accordingly quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondents from initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, if they are so advised, strictly in accordance with ‘law and in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge b y af Amit 1. 2006 (2) CGLJ 186 2. 2006 LT CG 41 3. 2005 LT (CG) 151