^SS^^K^ <0 ^ \ ^ \ ^^ V.1. • *)D *« \'^\. '^ ''^\ 191 10 13 \n /^s OJ l^^- .0 ??'< p. ftl (1) m n o; o rt O" (M (Q rl- P) <! C 1 o *' ta & .'-I Pi tB >•< W « (3 (D .o -.l-f a >-•• ^3 W p) U3 (t P) < !-•• ff b >-i i n. tu o ">*., ff I-' iQ (I) N3 o &• p- m Oi rt h- h| ._ ^•9 0 O rtp 1 (-• PJ ri- s o 1-i 1-A rl- WiQ 3 S Q^ rt- (» P) 'i ff O' 0) 11, "O (I) (u O n er »>-• 'o 5 PJ FI. b 3" ta ri-o (B 1-! •s» B) 3 O h- ><1 :(»:. O (O D P rf t(3 •" >ti o' ff s . .9 (" •' 1i O rt K (B ? (D °' 9l9- pj n. o' o S; tf ^l t'tl f» w b '<; u o •• P) n> ff rt- o iy »_ l~i ft) 0 K'< (B rt- .!-'• .-. <t ^- W oia m ff fu .0 fu (D n • (3 (ii\i-( iQ p> is; il' ra >1 o' R 3 i~s) 'fii 3 w P. .. ^ ^ •' w ' 1. sl 'w'w 1-' rt k<! rt- p) • s 3- 0 S C; U) p. W (D (B. |3' tn O O ff4 rl- O'l-i fi ri i-i fu (D •• a P- O d- P; n o. 01 >ol<:i n'- [U i-j ru ft) 1< !<; O l^ - n ^ H V W ftl (B O 0> \ O ff i:1'l<! O' L^. (n (B (1) iQ ^- 3 rt- S (B h-' I I 0 'd S o t-i S (B ir'iQ SV 9 3 Qg n 3 (u y 6) ff p. rt- p) u3 p) S.o' S f ^ <V i-i.V (i) 0'rt /-^•r s no A7=^ HiGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR WRITPETITION N0.1099 OF20Q3 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Gurudayal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Artjcle 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Mr. Anil Pandey, counsel forfhe peBiioner. Ms Sm'rta Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the respondent No.3. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on ttiis 8tn day of September, 2009) 1. Heard learned counset for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitiener seeks to challenge legalHy and validity oftheorder dated 23-2-2002 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kachanda, Janjgir-Champa, whereby Uie petitioner has been removed from the post of Panchayat Seeretary, order dated 1-8-2002 (Annexure - P/4A), passed by the Sub Divisional OfRcer, Janjgir, in Appeal No.98-A 89/2001-02 whereby frie appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected, and the order dated 25-2-2003 (Annexure - P/1) passed bythe Additional Cotlector, Janjgir-Champa, in Revtsion Case ^k?.16/A.89(15)/2(X)1-02, whereby the revision filed by tte petitioner has been dismissed by maintaining the orders (^ssed by the Sarpanch as well as the Sub Dh/isionat Officer. 3. The fects, in nutshell, are that initially the petittona- was appointed as Panchayat Secretary. While the petitioner was working as Secretary he made a complaint against the Sarpanch with r^gard to misappropriation of public exchequer amounting to Rs.1,72,312/-. On the basis of the said complaint proceedings w?re initiated against ffie Sarpanch under Seetion 40 of the w •^^"^ 'l (^) •^."^s^ 5. r<t;hhattisaarh Panchavat Rai Adhinivaffi, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1993"). During pendency ofthe said proceedings, the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Secretarv bv the Sarpanch bv order dated 23-2-2002 (Annexure - P/2). on the allegations that the petitioner has not performed has duties in proper manner, he was negligent and comnnittsd gra'/e indiscipiine in discharging the duttes. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23-2-2002, ths petiiioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir, who vide order dated 1-8-2002 dismissed the appeal. Thereaoainst the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additionai Coiiector, The Additionai Collector also, by order dated 25-2-2X3 dismissed the revision, by maintaining the orders passed by the Sarpanch as well as the Sub Divisionai Officer. Thus, this petition. Learned counsel aDDearina for the oetitioner submits that without affording proper opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 23-2-2002 has been passed by the Sarpanch and ths appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary was canceiied in an Hleaai and arbitrarv manner. The rssoondent authorities passed the impugned orders without appreciating the facts and circumstances ofthe case in its letter and spirit. act of the respondent authorities is contrary to the provisions of Ruie 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeai) Ruies, 1999, (for short 'the Ruies, 1999'). The question of iaw Involved in this case is asto whether the Detitioner, who was dedared as Panchayat Secretary, can be removed from the post without complymg proper procedures as laid down in Rule 7 of fte Rules, 1999, as it is not in dispute fhat ••<(.•si\ wst;yi: | t.' X'SSSi 5- the petitioner was removed without affording proper opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show cause notice te him. 7. It is well settled orincioie of iaw as enshrined in Ruia 7 of the Rules, 1999 that if the Gram Panchayat proposes to remove a Panchayat Karmi including Panchayat Secretary, the same shal! be done in accordance vwth the procedure prescribed in Ruie 7 of the Rules, 1999. 8. There is no quarrei on the fact that the Gram Panchayai, before passing the impugned termination order has not complied with the provisions of Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 199. 9. Th's C-ourt, i" Dhalursm Kosaria v. State of CG and oWiers, observed as under: "19. It is further admitted by all the parties that the procedure for holding an enquiry is prescribed uncier Rule 7 of the Rutes 1999 for imposition of majQr penaity, that has not baen foltowed. Hence, frie termination is bad and vitiated on the ground of non- compiiance of the statutory proivisions and denial of the principles of natural justice. It amounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Ruie 7 of the Ruies 1999 but the provisions of Articte 311(2) of the Constitution of India aiso. The order is in fact pena! in naturs having civi! consequenBes and as such the eiaborate provision of Rule 7 of the Ruies 1999 was app!icab!e in the case of the petitioner before terminating his services." 10. Further, in Beegam Ram v. Stete of CG and other/, ftis Court obseroed as under: "7. With regard to exercise of povrer by the High Court under Articie 226 and 227 of the Censtitution of india, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of 1 2006 (2) CGLJ 186 2 2006 LT (CG) 41 •^ decisions hava taid down tha prhciptes of !aw that the High Court has jurisdiction and power to interfere if the Court is satisfied that the siror is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, ciear ignorance and utter dlsregard of provisions of !aw and/or a grave injustice or gross violation of justice has occasioned thereby. !n the present case, Revenue Authorfties/ Tribunals have completely ignored the statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 and there is manifest error of the facts on the face of record, without requiring any investigation or enquiry. Admittedly, the dieged show cause notice dated 27.2.2000 (Annexure R/3) couid not have bsen served through the Gudi KotwM- wi 24.02.2000, three days before the issue of show cause notice. No notice as contempiated under Rule 7 of tha Rules 1999 was issued to the petitioner. Prior to submission of the enquiry report on 29.6.2000 (Annexure R/5), the Gram Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner from his seroice on 18.05.2cx)0 and pursuant thereof, ordsr of the removal was passed on 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/3)" 11. Subsequentiy in Raj Kumar Niimalltar vs. Stete of G.G. and othsr^, again the same issue came up for consideration before this Court, wherein, it was observed in the foitowir^ terms : "2. Learned counsel appearing for tlw petitioner submits that the tesue asto whether a Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary can be rsmoved from sep/ices without hoiding proper enquiry as contemplated under provistons of Rule 7 of the Rutes, 1999 came up for consideration before this Court in Dhaiuram Kosaria vs. State of C.G. and Ofters. It was subsequently foilowed tn . ssverai cases. This order ateinsd 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 (Rocylal Nayak vs. The State pf ChhaWsgarit and Others) has held that removai of a from the post of Qram •'vvp (S) No. 3494/2008 (15-4-2009) <»- ^"s ^ ^ Panchyat, initialiy appointed as Panchayat Karmi wouid be govsrned by th® provisions of the Ruies,1989. Withdrawal of charge of the post of Secretary from the petifioner, being Panchayat Karmi, tantamounts to rsduction in rank and S!RCS 'reduction in rank ss a major penaity in terms of Ruis 5(b)(Jv) of the Ruies, 1999, it cannot fcse imposed without conduGting a regular departmentai enquiry as snvisagsd under Ruie 7 offlie Ru!ss, 1999." 12. Non-compiiance of the statutory provisions and denial of princiDles of natural justice tantamounte to infraction of not only the Drovisions of Ruie 7 of the Rules. 1999 but the orovisions of Article 311 (2'S of the Constitution of india alsc. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting with civil (evi!) consequences, cannot be passed without holding enquiry m accordance with the elaborate provislons, as prescribed in Rule 7 oftheRutes, 1999. 13. It is thus clear that the respondent authorities have not followed the statutory provisions of law before passing the impugned order. 14. !n view of the foregoing, the petltion is allowed. The impugned order dated 23-2-2002 (Annexure-PQ), order 1-8-2002 (Annexure-P/4A) and the order dated 25-2-2003 (Annexure - P/1). are auashed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge