HIOHCOURT OF CNHATTISGARH: BttASPUR Wrlt PeUtfon (Sl No. 6SS2 of 2007 Petitioner Gauri Shankar Pandey, aged 44 years, S/o. Shri Goretal Pandey, r/o. Gram: Teliapuran, Tahsil Lormi, Dist. Bilaspur (CG). yeisus Respondents 1) State of Chhattl^arh through the Secretary to the Govt. of C.G., Departmert of Panrtiayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG). 2) The Chief Executive Cfficer, Tahsil Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 3) Grann Panchayat Teliapuran, through the Sarpanoh, Gram Panehayat - Teliapuran Tahsil Lormi, Oistt. Bilaspur(CG). (Wfit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bte Mr. SaUsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri A D. Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Hant, Deputy Advocate General forthe resporKlert No.l/State. . Shri Arun Sao, counsel for the respondwt No.2. Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsel forthe respondent No.3. ORAI.ORDER (Passed on 3-3-2008) The present petttion filed under Artiote 226/227 of the Constttution of tndla impLgns the order dated 23-9-2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2- the Chief Executive Offficer, Tahsil Lormi, Dist. Bilaqsur, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the post of (Secretary) Panchayat Karmi crf the Gram Panchayt Tetiapuran, Tahsil Lormi. 2) It is admitted case of the responderts No. 2 and 3 that ttie show cause notice was Issued to the p^itloner on 27-7-2007 (Annexure R/3). The petitioner dld not respond to the said notlce by filing hls response. Thereafter, it was felt necessary not to hold formal enquiry and issued charge-sheet to the petitioner as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Chhattlsgarh Panchayat Service (Disciptine and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, "the Rules 1999"). ~——--— 3) Rute 7 of the Chhatti^arh Pancha^at Sen4ce (Discipline and Appeat) Rules 1999 reads as under: "7. Procedure for imposing majw penalUes.- (1) No order, imposing on a member of the Panchayat Service, any of the penatties specified In clause (iv) to (via) of rute 5 shali be passed except after a formal inquiry is heid as (ar as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) When an order for formal inquiry has been made, the disciplinary authority shall frame Definite charges on the basis ofatlegattons andshall communicate such charges, atong wth the statement of the allegatlons, to the member of the Panohayat Sen/ioe and also requipe hlm to submit, within such time as may be specified a written statement of defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. (3$ The pereon against whom inqulry is to be hetd shalt, for the purpose ofpreparing toe defence, be pemiitted to inspectand take extracts from suoh records as he may specity: Provided that such permission may be refused if, fbr reasons to be reoorded in vwiting, in the opinion of the Enquiry Officer such records are pot reievant fbr the purpose or it is against the public irterest to allow his aceess thereto: (4) On receipt of the written statement of defence or if any such statement is not received within the ttme speclfled, the disciplinary authority may himself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or appoint an Enquiry OfRcer to hojd the inquiry and forward to him his report and, If advlsed, his recommendation along with al! the Inquiiy papers. (S) The disclplinary authority may nominate any person to present the case In support of the charges before the Enqdry Officer. The member of the Panchayat Service may present his case vwth the assistance of any other Panchayat Servant of State Government Servarrt approved by the Enquiry Officer but may not engage a lega! practitioner for the purpose, unless the pereon nominated by the disciplinary authority as aforesaid isa \egai practitioner or unless the disciplinary auttiority having regard to the oiroumstances of the case so permits. (65 Ifthe servant ofthe Panchayat Servlce desires to be heard in person, he shall be so heard. If he so desirss or if the dtsciplinary authority so directs, an oral enquiry sHall be hetd by the Enquiry Officer. At such inquiry evidence shall be heard as to such ofthe aliegations as are not admitted andthe person chargec! sha!l be entitlec! to cross examine the witness, to give evidence in person, to produce documentary evidence, if any, and to have such witness called as he may wish: Provided that the Enquiiy Officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to ca!l a witness. (7) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the &iquiry OfRcer shall prepare a report of the inquiry, reoordirg his findings on eaoh of the charges together with reasons therefor. (8) The proceedings condueted against the pereons chaiged shall contain a sufRciert reoord of. (i) the charges framed against such person and the statement of allegations; (li) the written statement of defence tf any': (lii) the oral evidence taken in the oourse ofthe Inqyiry; (iv) the documentary evidence oonsidered in the coureeOfthe inquiry- (v) the orders, if any, made by the Enqulry Officer or the disciplinaiy authortty as the ease may be wth regard to the inquiry; (vi) a report setting out the flndings on each chacge and tl-ffi reasonstherefor. (9) the Enquiry Officer, if he is other than the dlsciplinary authority, shall submit the records of the proceedings mentioned in otause (8) above to the disciptinary authority without recommendatiCTi relating to the penalty to be imposed. The disciplinary authority shall consicter the record of the inquiry and its findings on each charge, havir^ r^anJ to the findings on the charges and the record (if the proeeedings) if he is of the opinion that any of the penatties speclfied in olauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 5 should be imposed, it shalt furnish to the person charged a copy of the peport of the Enquiiy OfHcer, and where the disciplinary authority Is not the Enquiry Officer a statement of its findings together with brief reasons fop disagreement, If any, with the Bndings of the Enquiry Officer. (10) The dteciplinary authortty shall consider the representation, If any, made by the peraon charged in response to the notice and determine the penalty, if any, shoukl be imposed and shail f»ssappropriate order on ttie case. (11) The orders passed by the disotplinary auttiority shdl be communioated to the member of the Panchayat Servtee, who shall also be supplied wtth a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and where, disciplinary authority is not the Enquiry Officer, a statement of its findings togdher with (he brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Enqutry Officer, untess they have already been supplied to the person ohatged". 4) Learned counsel appearir^ for the petitloner submits that the seMces of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) have been termlnated wlthout EfflOFdir® proper opportunityof hearing and not h accordance with the provisfons ofRule 7 of the Rutes 1999. Thus, the impugned order dated '23-9-3307 (Amexure P/1) whereby the seFVices of the petrtioner were terminated deserws to be quashed. ^- Raju ^ Learned counsel further submlts that the procedure prescribed in Ruie 7 of the Rules, 1^9 have not been followed. The petltioner was appointed m 27-1-1995 and without fbllowing the due process of law, the petitioner has been removed fcy order dated 23-9-2007, which is not sustainabte in law. 5) Admittedly, the Gram Panohayatibefore passirg the impugned tennination order has not complied wtth the provisions of Ruie 7 d the Rutes 1^9. Thls Court in Dhaturam Kosaria Vs. State of CG 8s othere1, Be^an Ram Vs. Stete of CG & others and Pratosh Chand Soni Vs. State of CG & othere has he1d that the non- complianoe of the statutory provlsions and deniaf af princlples of naturat justit» tantamounts to uifraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but the provisions of Artiote 311(2) of the Constitution of India ateo. The onier of remaval being penat in nature, vlsiting w'rth civil (evil) consaquences, cannot be passed without hokjing the enquiry in accoidance with the slaborate laowsions, es prescrtbed in Rute 7 ofthe Rules -\399. 6) It is thus clear that the respondente have not foltowed the statutory provisions of law before passing the impugned order. 7) On the que^lon of back wages, no teundafityi has b^n laM to establish the fact that whethei^the petitioner was galnfully employed elsewhere or not durirg thte period. Even otherwise, keepirg in view that the termination order has been vltiated not on merit, but on account of non-eompliance of the statotory provlstons before terminating the sen/tees of the petitioner, 30% back wages would be sufficient in the interestofjustlce. 8) In viaw of the foregoing, the petitlon is allowed. The impugned order dated 23-9-2007 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. No order as to costs. g^y. Satish K-Agnihotri Judge ' 2006 C2)CGU 186 2I006L.T.(CG)41 32005L.T.(CG)l51