HtGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH :BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (Sl No. 2368 of 2007 Pumachand Sahu, aged about 31 years, scnn of Jeevardhaa Sahu, village and P.0. Lukapara, Block Barankela, DistrKt RaigaA (CG). Versus 1 State of Cbhattisgarh, flirou^i Secretary, Department of P«inAayat smd Social WeUare, D.K. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raapm (CO). 2 Director. Panchavat and Sociai Weffa-e Department, Directorate, Raipur (CG). 3 The CoUector, Distt. Raigah (CO). 4 Prescribed AuAontv & Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Wetfare Department, Dist.Raigarh(CG). 5 Chief Exeontive OfiScer, Jayad Panchayat, Block Baraaitela, Dist. Raigarh(CG). (Wr'ft petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitutfon odndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihutri, J Present Ms Anju Ahuja, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakw, Dy. Adv. General for the State/ respondents No.lto4. Slui A.S. KacMiawaha, counsel for Ae respondent No.5. ,ORDER (Passed on this 17ulday ofApril, 2009) The petitioner was appointed as Panehayat Kanni and dieredter Ae petitioner was declared as Ihe Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Lukapara, Janpad Panehayat, Baranikela wider Section 69 of the Chbattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj AtBriniyatn, 1993 by ordw dated 12-9-1995. ^ 2) The petitioner was removed firom the post ofPanchayat Karmi/Secretary an the basis of fhe order dated 19-9-2005 (Annexure P/2) passed by Ae Deputy ESrector, Panchayat and Social Wetfare, Raigah. 3) Being a^rieved, (he petirioner fded an appeal before Ihe Director, Panehayat. The Director, by order dated 14-2-2007 (Annexuia - P/6), disnugsed theappeal. 4) The petitioner has filed this petition anpugiing tfae <ader dated 19-9-2005 (Annesture P/2) andfhe order dated 14-2-2007 (Annexu-e - P/6). AF n- i 'f, 5) Shri Thakur, leamed Dy. Adv. Geaecal appeaims on befaatf of flie State/respondents No.l to 4 and Shri Kachhawidia, leamed counsel qqiearing on behalfofthe respondent No.5, ia aU fairness adnrit fhat Ae procedure prescribed under fhe proivisions cfRule 7 affhe Rules, 1999 was tiot feUowed in Ifae iastmt case. However, leamed coimsel t»aytfiat the auAorities may be yanted Uberty to initiate proceedings ^ainst flie petitioner for having comnatted teegularities, in accordance wifh law. 6) Service conditions of (he petitioner »-egovemed by the provisiona oftfae Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rnles, 1999 (for shsat the Rules 1999'). Ririe 7 of flxe Rules 1999 provides for proeedute for imposition ofmajor penalties as specified in cteuse (iv) to (vi) (a) ofRule 5. 7) The issue with isgard to removal ofPanchayat Kanni wifhwit conn^ying with Ihe provisions of Rule 7 of Ihe Rules 1999 is no longer res mtegra. The same has been considered bv this Court in seveacal cases. to Dhiriuram Kosmia vs. State ofC.G. anda&ef^ wheiein, identical issue came iq) for considwation befa^ fltis Court, it was observed flierein Aat, removal of Panchayat Katmi wilfaout comptying with the provisions of Rule 7 offhe Rules 1999 M bad and contra? to Lsw. Finlfaes- in ffeyaram Aaftrg' w, State »fC.G. <m4 vttiw^ it was observed as under: "........Hence, fhe tenninatfon is bad andvitiated on the ground of non-compliance of fhe statutory provisions and denial of the prineiples of nabffal justice. It amounts to infractiai ofnot (mly the provisicms ofRule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but flie iwovisions of Article 3ll(2) ofAe Constiturien of&idia also. The order is in fact penal in nature, having civB consequmces and as such the elaborate provisions of Rule 7 of Ihe Riries 1999 were applicable in the cwse ofthe petitioner before terminating his serviees." 7) Subsequently m Rig Kwum Nunufkm vs. State ofC-G. and otiiera^, again Ae sane issue came up for considetadon before dus Court, wherein, it was observed in flie following tenns : "2. Leamed counsel appearing for Ae petitioner submits diat the issue' asto wfaefter a Panchayat Kanni/Panchayat Secretaiy can be removed from services wifhout holdiing proper enquiry as contemplated undsr provisimis ofRirie 7 offlie Rules, 1999 came up fnr consideratimi bafore this Court in l(2«e6(2)C.G.LI.18^ 2 (VF (^ No. 2919/2ea9 deddai on l^SOOOS) 3 <VP (s) N«.3494/200^ deddeilm 15<4QW^ -?- Dhaluram Kosaricivs. State efC.G. andOihers. B WM subsequartly followed in several cases. TUs onfcr attained finality as tfae same has not been chaBenged in aayotfaerforum." "3. A Division Bench oftius Court m Wrtt Peftion No. 1656 of 2004 (SoopM N^ak vs. The State of ChhtttSsgarh and Ottiers) has held fhat ranoval of a Stecretary J&om the post of Oraa Paiichyat, uitiaBy appointed as Panchayat Kanni would be govemed by flie provisions ofthe Rules.1999. Witfadrawal tfdiafgs of Ae post of Sectetary from the petirioaer, being Panchayat Kanni, taitamounts to reduction in fank since 'reduction in rank ia a major penalty in tenns of Rule 5(b)(iv) of fhe Rules, 199$, it caiuwt be inposed without conductmg a regular departmental enquny as envisaged under Rule 7 of<fae Rides, 1999." 9) Accardingly, the order dated 19-9-2W5 (Annexure P/2) and the wder dated 14-2-2007 (Annexwe - P/6) are quashed. On <he question of back-wages, no fowtdation has been laM to estatdish <he fact that whether (he petitioner was gainiidly emptoyed dsewhere or not during flris period. Even otherwise, keepmg in view that fte tenninatiwi ordw has been vitiated not <m mertt but on acconnt cfIKMI- eompliance offlie statutury provisiom before tenniaating the services ofthe petitioner, 30% back-wages would be sufiBoient in <he iatetest of justice. However, itismade ctear that flris order will not eome ia the way of flie respondents from mitiating flie discipMaaty action agaaist the petitioner for fee aUeged nrisc<mduct comnritted by hia, if so advised, in accordance wifh law aad in tnmg of the iMwcedure prescribed in Ride 7 of flie Rules, 1999. Gcnvri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge