•-3 c^ (Ct" IN CHB HON'BLSS HZGH OOURI OF OII-iA'mSGARH AT BILASPUR WCTI PiSTITION 110. O OF 20 03 P2TITION3 Ramji Das Joshi (Sa'cnami) son of Bahru Das Joshi, aged 27 years, R/o Village & Post Office Rauda, Gram Panchaya-fc Ray,<3a, Tahsil Dharadia, Distt. Dura. EtSSPONQENTS VERSU '..'•'^£<St -<,^^t-p"Thz ^^c'.-- .^y' !7.%. S. SAH?^| <.^^ •r../ i c ^ ..•'r, Sfcate of Chhattisgar-h •"''>{''3t :'hrouqh- Ihe Secretarv '.r<'^gf' - "-'- -^ ~ --------_ ?^%i^ •• Panchayat and aaler Development; Department, D.K.S. B'nawan, G.E. ;% 2. Soad, Raipur. Gollector, Durg i^^ 1*IL__«^.__..._ ....„_.„„. -_•- :''L)?'^... / P^ffZTIOK UNDER ARTIGLE ,226, OP, GONS'?:troCTON_ 0^_ai£ZNQIA ^.s<f~^' :-.:i'-'y^ i 'i\°',.;- .••"•"'~c-- '•' '" f 1 ..*.. i ^ ^^^^J- gB8i •2- -f"£<^.A .nffwrs-s.t'H' i-ME.Mil ii XI-HC-22 3ST •<ll<<lfl4, »Tflti'l<o,fsfdl'y^ 311^1 Masb Nlllrtl diW<h'"*'"''""""f'"fv^ 200"§ •s-\ W^TW Is-ii't'sn^T sbiwg^s 3<I^I^WIW:flf?(T 29-4-2005 On a mention being made, Mr. H.B: Agrawal, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. M,r. Sanjay Shyam A9rawal respondents. Heard both the counsel. The petitioner's case is th< vide order dated 27-10-1995 (/ Panchayat; Raunda, on the fixed month. Without following Chhattisgarh Paichnyat Service without conducting any enquiry terminated by respondent No.2 negli9ence in performance of Annexure P-2 be qiiashed. Opportunity to fiie repiy the year 2003, but so far no opportunity, on the request of weeks' time was allowed to fiie filed. Therefore.arguments wen +i<itci'in-t wRiyiftectS'iRt+AK ^sri^iTsn^T matter is taken up for hearing. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, 6overnment Advocate for the State/ ^t he was qspointed as Panchayat Karmi (/^nnexure P-1) by the Sarpanch, Gran\ lonorarium at the rate of Rs.500/- per tt^e procedure as laid down in the [Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and the.petitionef's services have been vide Annexure P-2 on the qround of c^uty. Therefore, the impu9ned order |ivas given to the State/respondents in kturn has been filed. Even as a iast ^dmed Panel Lawyer on 5-5-2004, two relturn. Even then olso no return hos been heard. \'1\W^l^-./ : J XI-HC-22 3^' •<<i<<ici<i|, 8iTf)«'i<s, is|^iy^< 3Tlip CT'L ^y^- ii*<Mr%Ni«i F?T'-ra% fc3.,^.J .^.^.tt'-* 200 3> an^r^ fewan^T st'li*gf?(T It is admitted oosition t Karmi his services were governed (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1( not bsen conducted which is Annexure P-2 itself. As has bes Prokash Chandra Patel vs. (W.P.No.594/2003), order passes Ktb a Poinchayat Karmi which come) envisaged in Rule 7 of the Rules| the same has not been followed order is iiiegai, and the same is li41 AAr. Sanjay Shyam A9raw4i perusal of Annexure P-2 shows from the post of Panchayat Se| from the post of Panchayat entitled for any relief. In repiy, Mr. H.B. Agraw^i tiiat the petitioner has been cind he is not getting any salcry. endorsement No.3, iearned Senji No.3, which has been made with Medesara, is clear that for rem(> +iifd41-1 tii^dTfffetd <Rtwi< ^srf^iTsn^r |iat the petitioner being a Panchayat by the Chhattis9arh Panchayat Service. 9, in respegt of enquiry, and that has bvident frorn tiie termination order [n held by this Court in the matter of ptate of Chhattis9arh and others on 151' March, 2004, before rerr'oving under major penalt/, procedure as 1999, is required to be followed, and !in this ca.ae. Therefore, the impugned ^ble to be quashed on this ground only. \\, tearned 6ovt. Adyocate argued thct that the petitioner has been removed :retary and he has not been removed 'mi. Therefore, the petitioner is not rerrloved I, learned Senior Advocate submitted from the post of Panchayat Kar'mi Drawing the attention of the Court on ir Advocate argued that endorsement eference to Sarponch, 6ram Panchayat; >val of the petitioner from the post of XI-HC-22 3^ •^ww'f, w^wie, Isiciiwy tiwni sh*ii<*> 3TT^?Tqa^ _..^.;B^^9 n^ WT 200- sn^rw R-iwsn^r sti^icn yf^cr Slifl* Soma ail^lgWlWtrf^T ^, Panchayat .Karmi order be issue^ the petitioner has been removed. Therefore, in the above ci^ learned 6oyt. Advocate Mr. foundation. In the resuit, the petition is quashed. The respondents a\ service with al! consequential Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.^ disposed of. Parties are enl-itled for in accordance with law. Accordingly, ^cumstances, the argument advanced by S^injay Shyam Agr'awal is without any is allowed and the order Annexure P-2 ^•e directed to take the petitioner in ben^fits. 108/2003 and I.A.No.2348/2004 stand <*l.'l?ct41-( 4|t|ri)'fftecA<Rl^l<. ^sri^rgn^r cerltified ified copy of this order. _,.,- —-- ^ g^ari00 3ud9e ^ ((f@^)^r)