^SSIBi'iJ'Kfi^lK^lMr' '- ®N'8lS&*£:.-&Ei>iil«'IJ'iI-''^ • IN THE mGH COURTOPCHHAT'NSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)NO. OF 2008 PETITIONER : c, ^&^> %%^^ ^^ yy t*".^-' Raviiidra Kishore Chandra S/o pnkar, •Chandra, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Thuthi, Tafasil Jaijaipur, DistrietiJanjgirChampaC.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^N^ .'. ^^:'*R ^\. , \ State of Chhattisgarh, Tlirougti: The Secretary, Fancl'iayat and Social Welfare • ,^ -;'Sefiiar^:Qent, D.K.S. SBBawan,, Raipyr (C.G.) 5'EKe^DirectaT, ' 'PsauMayat, Directorate Pmld'iayat and Social Services Chhaftisgarh, Raipur C.G. ^-3. The Depuly DirectoT, Panchayat and Social Services, ' ,' , . '• Janjgjr Champa C.G. 4. Sarparieh Gram Panchayat Thuthi, Janpad Panchayat JaijaiRXar, District Janjgir ChampeKC.G. t ^ "»" •ssi^mSSf.iWit^awuUfiaSisieiiisiaasia raa^mSSfaSiEss :';'i;TjJ;:. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WR1T IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATUREETC. -w ffass'-i. fsSsmsfsiiS!S& BicafB>kiBt,MaLiihJ!l|.lj ——:!'ti •w aSpnr uioqm§v"aisPBS -/PS 1:":' '01.02 'AjBnuec}o Aep^^' • • uo lusii.ugpnr^o lusiuaounouojd jo^ isod SJS410 '8 \ifeSsfneWO i°aWts snsjSA + ejpueLio SJ014SI)) ejpuiAey siNgciNOdsay y3N011113d SaOg d0 /.Z9S'ON (S) N011113d liaM yndsviia: HavQsulvHHO do lanoo HQIW iij )i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM : BILASPUR WRITPETITIONj(S) N0.2527 OF 2008 PETITIONER FiavihdraKishoreGhandra RESPONDENTS Versus Sfate of Chhattisgarh & Others 1.. (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 6f India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri SatishK.Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the-State/respondents No.1 to3. None forthe respondent No.4. ORDER (Delivered on this 6 day ofJanuary, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge legality and validity ofthe order dated 7-4-2008 (Annexure - P/1), passed by the Director (Panchayat), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in Appeal No. 2/A-89(15)/07.08 (Ravindra Kishore Chandra v. Deputy Director & Another), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17-9-2007 (Annexure - P/6), passed by the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Janjgir-Champa, by which the petitioner was rempved from the post of Panchayat Secretary, has been dismissed. The faGts, in hutshell, for adjudication ofthe case, are thatinitially the petitioner was appoirited as Panchayat Karmi by Gram Panchayat, Thuthi vide resolution dated 2-11-1995. Thereafter, by orderdated 2-7-1999 (Annexure - P/2) the petitioner was declared as Panchayat Secretary. The respondent No.4/SarpanGh made a written complaint before the respondent No.3 as well as before the Police against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner withdrew an 2. ^y.- r--llii! psnssi SBM 'fr'ON luapuodssj aq}Aq ps[y }U[B|dujoo aqi O) tuensjnd 'soitou asneo Moqs sqi sou!StB4}S9n6je A[iuaiusL<8A £0} I.'ON s)uspuod88j/s}e)s 94} joj BuuBsdde issunoo p&ujesi 'ejtuoo jad •^ •(,6661. 'ssiny aq), Ijoqs JQ^) '6661. 'ssiny (|E9ddv pue suiidiosia) soi/uas )BABqoued . qjeGsiueqqo aqi p ^. S|ny ui paquossjd se suoisiAOjd a}Bjoqe|S aq} q)iM BuiAidujoo tnoqtiM eoiAjas luo^ |eAOLuaj p japjo psuBndiuj aqt possed pey ssiiuoLitnE luspuodssj eqi •JSUUEUJ ^ejiiqje pue |eB8||!yB ui ps][83ueo semAjBtajoeg pue !UJJE>| 4eABL|oued y) }sod 3q} uo jauoii^sd 34} ^o tuauiiuiodde sq} pue psssed SBM jspjo psuBndui! 94} 'Buueaq ^o/}!un}joddo jadojd Buipjoye tnoqtiM )eL|t S}!iuqns jauo!i!}ad aqi JO^ Buueadde |asunoo psujes-| •e •uo!i!iad SIL|( 'snqi -([./d - sjnxeuuv) QOOZ -^-j_ paiep japjo psuBndLui aqi Aq psssiLusip sem qoiqM 'jndiey 'qjEBsiueijqo '()eAeL]oued) joioejia sqi sjojoq |eadde ue psjja^ejd jsuoitifsd eq} 'jspjo IBAOLUSJ sq} Aq p8AS]j66e Guisg 'AjBtSjoes teAeqoued P }sod 941 11104 pSAOLuaj SEM jsuoi^isd sq} '(g/d ejnxsuuv) ZOOZ-6-ZI- paiep japjo Aq 'A|)uanb9sqng •ieAeqouEd LUBJQ eq} Aq uoiin|OS9j aqf jo Buissed jsye A|UO uMBJpqiiM SBM tunoLue sq} }eL|t psuiiuqns aH 'tuieidujoo aq) ui epeuj suo!ie6s||e SL|} BuiAusp '(^/d—sjnxsuuv) ZOOZ~6-81. uo ^ldsJ siq peuiujqns pue 'e/d - ajnxsuuv UJQJI luspiAS si qoiq/w 'ZOOZ~6-ZI. uo eoitou ssneo moqs sqt paAiaosj jauoitiiad sqi 'idisosj s)i ys Qysp aq) LUOJI sAep eajq} p pousd e uiqfiM A|dsj siq tiujqns 0} psjinbsj SBM J9yo!)!iad sqi pue penssi se/w (g/d—sjnxsuuy) ZOOZ-6-S PS}BP S3!lQu ssneo Moqs e 'iuieidLuoo pies aqi ^o siseq sqt UQ •qouBdjBS sqi p sejnteuBis psSjOj BU!>|BLU Aq ssnbaqo qBnojq)-)|ueq a^ LUOJJ -/oo6'£'sy pue -/QOZ'Z'sy p }unouje to the petitioner/delinquent, it was notnecessary to follow the statutory procedure as prescribed'underthe provisionsdf Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 before imposing major penalty i.e. removal from service. 5. It is well settled principle of law as enshrined in Rule 7 Ofthe Riiles, 1999 that if the Gram Panehayat proposes to remove a Panchayat Karmi including Panchayat Secretary, the sameshall be done in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. 6. There is no quarrelon the fact that before passing the impugned termination elaborate provisions of Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999 have not been complied with. 7. This Court, in Dhaluram Kosaria v. State of CG and others, observed as under: • "19. It is further admitted by all the partiesthat the procedure for holding an enquiry is preseribed under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 for imposition of major penalty, that has not been followed. Hence, the termination is bad and vitiated on the grourid of non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of the principles of natural justice. It amounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 but the provisions of Article 311(2) ofthe Constitution oflndia also. The order isin fact penal in nature having civil consequences and as such the elaborate provision of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was applicable in the case of the petitioner before terminating his services." •^. .Further, in Beegam Ram v. State of CG and others , this Court » observed as under: "7. With regard to exercise of power by the High Court under Artide 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 12006(2)CGLJ186 2 2006 LT(CG)41 4 A ^w.. in catena of decisions have laid down the principles of law that the High Couri: has jurisdiction and power to interfere. if the Court is satisfied that the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, clear ignorance and utter disregard of provisions of law and/or a grave injustice 6r gross violation of justice has occasioned thereby. In the present case, Revenue Authorities/ Tribunals have completely ignored the statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 and there is manifesterror ofthe facts on the face of record, without requiring any investigation or enquiry. Admittedly, the alleged show cause notice dated 27.2.2000 (Annexure R/3) could not have been sen/ed through the Gudi Kotwar on 24.02.2000, three days before the issue of show cause notice. No notice as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was issued to the petitioner. Prior tosubmission of the enquiry report on 29,6.2000 (Annexure R/5), the Gram Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner from his service on 18.05.2000 and pursuant thereof, order of the removal was passed on 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/3)" Subsequently in Raj Kumar Nirmalkar vs. State ofC.G. andothers , again the same issue came up for consideration before this Court, wherein, it was observed in the following terms : "2. Learned counsel appearihg for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether a Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary can be removed from services without holding proper enquiry as contemplated under provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 came up for consideration before this Court in Dhaluram Kosaria vs. State of C.G. and Others. It was subsequently followed in several cases. Thi? order attained finality as the same has not been challenged in any other forum." "3. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1656 of 2004 (Rooplal Nayak vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others) has held that removal of a Secretary from the post of Gram Panchyat, initially appointed as Panchayat Karmi would be governed by the provisions of the Rules,1999. Withdrawal of charge of the post of Secretary from the petitioner, being Panchayat Karmi, tantamounts to reduction in rank and since 'reduction in rank is a major penalty in terms of Rule 5(b)(iv) of the Rules, 1999, it cannot be imposed without conducting a regular WP (S) No. 3494/2008 (15-4-2009) departmental enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 oftheRules, 1999." 10. Non-compliance of the statutory provisions tantamounts to infraction of notonly the provisions of Rute 7 ofthe Rules, 1999 but the provisions ofArticle 311 (2) of the Constitution of India also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visitihg with civil consequences, cannot be passed without holding enquiry in accordancewith the elaborate provisions, as prescribed in Rule 7 OftheRules, 1999. 11. It is thus clear that the respondent authorities have not followed the statutory provisions of law before passing the impugned order. 12. In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 7-4-2008 (Annexure-P/1) and the order dated 17-9-2007 (Annexure-P/9), are quashed. No order asto costs. Gowri •^ ;J,,,.,,'Sd^:.,:.;/ ^ SgtishR Agnihotri "s=^|?!:;'IJu<^e:,-. J . liKsB^^^tlB'