w oh^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CTffIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. 3 F.P. No. '^1^'"''/2002. PETTTIONER. y.^- ^^' t> 1^-:-"ywA- '^?"S§L::-" <3-' RESPONDENTS Sarendra Bahadur slngb s/o Nandgopal Singh, aged about 25 years, Panchayat Karmi, Graa Panchayat Khond, Tehsil Bad.kunthpur, District Korj.a,C.G VE R SIT S. 8 1. The State of Chbattisgarh, through the secretary, Panchayats, D.K.Bhawan, Ralpur, C.G. ^y' •;3!^a_ 2. Gram Panchayat Khoad, through the Sarpaneh, Gram Panchayat Khond, TehsJ.1 BaJ-kuBthpur, DJ.str.Lct Koria, C.G. 3. Chlsf Executlve Offlcer, Jan- pad Panchayat Baitainthpur, DistrJ.ct Koria, C.G. WRIT PETCTION UNOER ARTICLE 2267227 OF THE OKsTir-UTION OTi—INDIA7 wr. AFf^' ":^^ ••f: •{' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2833 of 2002 Petitioner Surendra Bahadur Singh Versus Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh 8s others WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE •2261'227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri A. K. Shukla, Advocate with Shri Ataiu Ghosh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No. 1. Shri J. K. Shastri, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3. O RD E R (Oral) (Passed on this 9th day of Februaiy, 2010) Heard. 1. The present petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugns the resolution dated 17.11.2002 (Annexure P/6), passed by the Gram Sabha and the order dated 17.11.2002/5.12.2002 (Annexure P/9), passed by the Sarpanch, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi. 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that by orderdated 4.11.1995 (Annexure P/1) the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karxni in Village Panchayat - Khond, Block - Baikunthpur, District Surguja. Subsequently, by order dated 30.10.1999 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner was declared as Secretary. On 30.10.2002 a show cause notice (Annexure P/3) was issued to the petitioner alleging certain irregularities, which were replied by the petitioner on 6.11.2002 (Annexure P/4), denying all the allegations in categorical terms. Thereafter, by communication dated 8.11.2002 (Annexure P/5) of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur, the Sarpanch of the village Panchayat Khond was permitted to hold the meedng of Gram M .,6iI'II"E>El,.. /y:tf\ ^;^^^.^ ""-^•^1 ^ ^,. ^J/ Sabha on 17.11.2002. Accordingly, the meeting of the Gram Sabha was held on 7.11.2002, passing the resolution (Annexure P/6) for reinoval of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi by order dated 17.11.2002/5.12.2002 (Annexure P/9), passed by the Sarpanch. Leamed'counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the mandatory, statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 were not followed before removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, the impugned resolution, passed by the Gram Sabha as well as the impugned order (Annexure P/9) were illegal and bad on the ground that fhe petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. In support of his submissions learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court in Dhalurani Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. & others1, which was relied on in Anjordas Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 provides for procedure before terininating service of a member of Panchayat. In the instant case, it is apparent that the said provisions were not followed, no definite charges were framed and the petitioner was not served with the articles of charges before holding an enquiry, leading to termination of the petitioner from his services and in fact neither the show cause notice was issued nor the enquiry was held. The termination was passed on the basis of the resolution of the Gram Sabha in its meeting dated 17.11.2002. The impugned order of removal is unsustainable. It is evident that the impugned removal order was passed without following the statutory and mandatory procedure of law, as prescribed under Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 1999. The procedure for holding an enquiry is enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 for ' {2006(2) C.G.L.J. 186} 2 {2008 (III) MPJR-CG 110} nsa. 7. 8. Thakur imposition of major penalty. Hence, the removal is bad and vitiated on the ground 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 also the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The order was in fact penal in nature, having civil consequences and as such compliance of the elaborate provisions, as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was mandatory in the present case. (See the case of Dhalurain Kosaria and Anjordas (supra)}. For fhe reasons mentioned hereinabove that the petitioner was reinoved from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary in an arbitrary manner, without following the principles of natural justice and further without following the statutory procedure, the petitioner remained out of the job since 5.12.2002 and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered great financial loss, thus grant of 30% back wages would sub-serve the interest ofjustice. Resultantly, the petition is allowed with back wages, as afore-stated. The impugned resolution dated 17.11.2002 (Annexure P/6) and the impugned order dated 17.11.2002/5.12.2002 (Annexure P/9) are set aside. No order asto costs. —-—----—-—__ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge