IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) $ WRIT PETITIONfE’NO. 6017 OF‘2006 ETITIONER Pustam Sahu, Son of Sri Motiram P Sahu, aged about 33 years, working as a Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) resident of Village: Pota Para, Village Panchayat Anwla Chakka, Tehsil : Saraipalli, District : Mahasamund (C.G.).. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat and~ Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). The Dy. Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Raipur, District — Raipur (C.G.). The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipalii, District — Mahasamund (C.G.). AMENDED PETITION VERSUS illage Panchay, nwla hakka V at A C through the Sarpanch, Tehsil ~ Saraipalli, District — Mahasamund (C.G.). Jalandher Pradhan, Assistant Village Panchayat Officer, Village Panchayat Kedwa, Janpad Panchayat Saraipalli, District Mahasamund (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CO‘NSTITUTIUON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, DIRECTIONS ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B§LASPUR WRIT PEYKTKDN NOEm'i OF 20G$ PETiTiQNER Pustam Sahu Versus Sfate of Chhattisgarh & 0thers (Writ Petition unéer Articles 226f227’ of the Constitution of india) Singie Beneh : Hon’bie $hii Satish K. Agnihciri, J. Present :- Shri V.K. Pandey, ccunsei for ihe petiiiener. Shri MRS. Bhatia, Dv. govt Advocate for the Siate. $hri Ayaz Naveé, ceunsel for the respandent No.3. Shri Pankai Shrivasiava, counsei for the respondent No.4. RESPQNDENTS / QREER {ORAL (Passed an thie 20: day of January, 2016} 3. By this petition. the peiitiorier seeks ’te chaiienge the iegaiity and vaiidiiy 0f the resoiutian dated 20-92006 (Annexure — P/i) passed by the Gram $abha wheieby and whereundei the petiiioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi and the order eated 23-9-2006 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the Chief Executive Omcer, Janpad Panchayat. Saraigaii, whereby the charge of Panchayat Karmi was handed over to other person The facts, in hutsheii, for disoosai of the case, are that the . petitioner was appointeci as Panchayat Karmi oi Gram Panchaya‘r Anwia Chakka on i5—12-1Q93. Thereafter, by erder dated i'M 24 9% the petitioner wae given the charge of Secretary. The peiitioner had been discharging his duties with greai sincerity. However, aii of a sudden on the basis of compiaiht and on the basis of the order dated 12—§-2OGS passed by the respohdent No.3, the Qram Panchayat by its resotution dated 20-9—2606 (Ahhexure - Pf‘t) removed the petitioner from the post of Penchayet Kermi and A£K i)x \/, 7X5 by order dated 23-9-2006 the charge of Pamhayat Karmi wa$ given i0 oiher person. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no charge-sheet has been issued and nc enquiry hae been conducted before the impugned resoluticn and the impugeed crder thefeon were passed. The impugned action was taken without complyéng with the mandatory provisions of Ruie 7 of the Chhaiiisgarh Panchayat Sewice (Discipline and Apnea!) Rules, 1§9§, ’for shim 'the Ruies, 1999’). Learned counsel apgearing for the respendents submits tnar admittedly, no enquiry as envisaged under Ride ? of the Ruies, $99 was cenducted. i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the sieadings and the documents appended thereto. The question of taw invotved in this case is asto whether the petitioner, who was deciared as Panchayat Secretary can be removed from the eost without compiying proper prooedures as laid down in Ruie 7 of the Rules, 1999. Admittediy, as evened by teamed eounsei appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was removed without supplying the charge—sheet and without conducting any enquiryt t is well~settied principte ofriaw as enshrined in Ruie 7 of the Ruies, $99 that if the Gram Pancnayat proposes to remove a Panchayat Karmi including Panchayat $ecretary, the same may be done in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Ruies, 1999. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat, before passing the impugned resoiution has not compiied with the provisions of Ruie i’ of the Ruies, t99§. 8. This Court, in Dhelurem Koseria v. $reie of CG end others’, absemed s under: a “19. it is furthef admitted by an the parties that the procedure for hoidEng an enquiry is presczibed under Ru§e 7 o§ the Rmes 1‘999 for imposition of magcr penaEty, that ha5 not been foHowed. Hence, the termihation is bad and vmated on the gfound of men-compliance 9f the cf naturai justice. 3x amounts to infiaction of not only the previsions of Rude 7 ef the Ru!es 1999 but the provisions m’ Anicle 311(2) of ihe Constitution of andia aiso. The order is in fact penai §n nature having civii consequences and as such the eiaborate previeion of Ruie 7 of the Ruies “i9Q9 was appSicebie in the case of the petitioner befwe terminating his sewices.” e. Further, in Beegem Rem v, Sieie of CG end oihersz, ihie observed as Linden :2ooe (2) CGLJ n36 ‘ 2006 LT {CG} 41 “1 With regard to exercise of power by the High Court under Ariicie 226 and 227 of the Constitution of indie; the Hon’bie Supreme i3ourt in catena oi decisions have iaid down the principies of iew that the High Court has jurisdiction and power to interfere if the Court is satisfieo that the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the prooeedings, clear ignorance and utter disregard of provisions of iaw endfor a grave injustice or gross vioiation of justice has occasioned thereby. in the present case, Revenue AuthoritiesiTribunais have compieteiy ignored the sterutory prouieions of Ruie 7 of the Ruiee, 19% and there is manifest error of the feats on the face of record, without requiring any investigation or enquiry. Admittediy, the aiieged show cause notice dated 272.20% (Annexure RfS) couid not have been served through ihe Gudi Kotwar on 24.132.2o00, three days before the issue of show cause notice. No notice as coniempieied under Ruie ‘i’ of the Ruies 1§99 was issued to the petitioner. Prior to submiesion of the enquiry report on 2&62000 (Annexure W5), the Gram Panoheyet resoiveci to remove the petitioner from his service on 18.05.20G0 and pursuani thereof, order of the remove! was passed on 33.05.2000 (Annexure Pf3)” w staturory provis‘ons and deniai oi the nrincipies i Court §«x 10. Nen-compiiance ef the siatutory provisisns and denia§ 0f yrincipies of natufai 3ustice tantameunts ta infracticn of’not only the provi$i0ns of Ruie 7’ of the Ruies, 1999 but the previsions of Articie 311 (2) of the Sonstitution of indie also. The order ’ef removat being penat tn nature, visiting with civi! consequences, cannot be passed without hc!ding enquiry is accordance with the elaborate provisions, aS nrescribed in Rute 7 of the Ruies, 1999. tt is, thus, dear that the respondents have not foilowed the statutory provisiens of taw before passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, there is no dispute with regard to the’fact that the impugned resolution and the impugned order were passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioneri 11. in View of foregoing, the impugned resolution dated 20—9-2006 (Annexure — P11) passed by the Gram Sapha and the order dated 23-9-2006 {Annexure — P/2) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panohayat, Saraipaii, are quashed. 12. 0n the question of back-wages: no foundation has been iaidvto x estabiish the fact that whether the petitioner was gainfuiiy empioyed \ elsewhere or not during this period. Eveh otherwise. keeping in View the fact that the removai order has been vitiated on account oi non-compiianoe of the statutory provisions hefore removing the petitioner from the service, 5£i% back-wages wouid be suiticient in the interest of iustice. it is ordered accordingly. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. i i Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri