te v<" '^ /^: ^ v^\^ ? IN THE HEGH COUET 01' JUBICAIURE ^T BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION NO»i4^S OF 2005 PETITIOMER c » (^^UcAr^r) RESPONDBNTS ^Af ftpp-die^ fyy/r7/^7 ^/y' ^y/^ Y^ /> /^ / (. NarMarl Lal sur.ja^ s/o Loknath sar|ta» aged aboat 36 years^ occapatio^ laboair^ resident of Village Kotdwari Tikas Khand Saraipali^ Distrlct Mahasamand (CG)» V^ers^s li State of Chhattlsgarb^throt.igli the Secretary ©epartmentof Panchayat^ ©•K,s»Btailding»Mantralay, Raipar ©istrlctRaiptar (CG)« / 2» Collector, Mahasaraiand, District Mahasamand (CG)^ ^ 3, ^ ^/J / Sub Divisional Officer (Revenae) Saraipali Bistriet Mahasamand • Beputy ©irector,Panchayat and SoclalWelfare, Mahasamarad (CG), , 5» Chief Executive Offj.cer> .Tanpad PancMayat sa^a-ipali District Mahasamund (CG)< / 6^ SarpQnch^ Graa Panchayat Kotd^arl> Block saralpali» District Mahasamand^l / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTOCLES 226/227 OF THE OONSTITUTION OF INDIA ?'A.^/ V^J M IGH COURT OF CHHATT3SGARH AT WRST PETITION N0.1465 OF 2005 PetEtloner Narhari Lai Surja Versus Responderrts State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTiCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF iNDIA (SB : Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) :- Smt. Anju Ahuja, Advocate for the petltipner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer forthe State/ respondent Nos.1 to4 Shri Arun Sao, Advocate for the respondent No.6. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 11th day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 21.3.2005, v^hereby the initiai appointment dated 28.1.2004 (sic) 25.1.2004 (Annexure P-4) was canceiled without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the order dated 29.4.2003 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 1349/2003, wherein iiberty was granted to the petitioner to make a representation, the petitioner made a representatlon to the respondent authorities. On the basis of representation made tothe authorities concerned, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kotdwari, by order dated 25.1.2004 (Annexure P-4) appointed the petitioner as Panchayat Karml, endorsing a copy of the same to the Chief Executive Offlcer, Jiia Panchayat Mahasamund, Deputy Director Panchayat & Socia! Weifare, Dlstrict Mahasamund, Sub Dlvisional Officer (Revenue), Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saraipall ete. The petitioner immediateiy joined the office and on the basis of his );f I,ytg"^ 1 \^-y' 4. appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi, by order dated 23.7.2004 (Annexure P-5), the Deputy Director Panchayat & Social Welfare, Mahasamund, deciared the petitioner as Secretary under provislons of Section 69(1) of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Thereafter, without affordingan opportunlty of hearing to the petitioner, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saraipall by the impugned order dated 21.3.2005 (Annexure P-6) cancelied the initia! appointment order dated 25.1.2004. Smt. Ahuja, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that even if it is presumed, without admitting, that the appointment was not in accordance with the rea.uirement, the same cannot be set aside without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, In accordance with the provislons of law. There was no occasion to challenge the order dated 28.02.2005, as it was neither communicated nor acted upon, as the petltioner continued as Panchayat Secretary tl!l the impugned order was passed. Shri Sao, Jearned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 submits that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance wlth the legal provisions as there should have been first resolution to appoint the petltioner, and thereafter approva!. Eariier, one Laiit Kumar was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi, but the same couid not be confirmed. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kotdwari canceiied the appointment order dated 25.1.2004, on 28.2.2005, which was not chailenged immediateiy thereafter before any forum, induding this Court. Be that as it may, it appears that the order of appointment as Panchayat Karmi which is within the domaln of Gram Panchayat ^. '/ .^-.^. ''v'^ ^ f'^ ...,c''';'? ^^te?.£^'y' 7. 8. Ashok for taking decision by way of resoiution, is subject to confirmatlon by Gram Sabha. The Deputy Director, thereafter acted on the appointment order, declared the petjtioner as Panchayat Secretary. The order dated 23.7.2004 continues as it is, as on the basis of the impugned order, no further order has been passed by the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Sociai Welfare. Even if the process has not been foliowed, it appears that the appointment has been made on the basls of representation as observed by this Court in order dated 29.4.2003 in W.P. No. 1349/2003, once the appolntment was made whlch was approved by the superior officers, the petitioner is entltied to at the most show cause notice as prescribed even under provisions of Ruie 7 of Panchayat Service (Dlsdp!ine and Appeal) Ruies, 1999 (for short "the Rules, 1999"). indjsputabiy no provlsions of law have been foilowed before taking decision of termination on the post of Panchayat Karmi. Thus, the order impugned hereln dated 21.3.2005 (Annexure P-6) Is quashed. However, Ilberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law, If so advised, after foiiowing the provisions of !aw, as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Ruies, 1999. There is no question of grant of backwages, as the basis of appointment of the petltioner is not ciear, whether the same was in accordance with iaw or otherwise. in view of the above, the petition Is aiiowed in part to the above extent. No order asto costs. —- Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge