"w Ot TBS BIt»OamKF <W •reBXCitKJIffisCSBMTXSSMIH: BXIAS^Bt WRIT SBIITION 3. ^TS'T^OE' 2006 EETITIONER .^^^- ../••" 0-^~~tl J .*•*'' ^•"'.Wl''' .>"" ,^€g^""' fy^ ^^ \-ft~~ ysss-'.}>••••" KESPONDENTS ;v // Ishwari Prasad Kashyap aged 39 yrs. s/o Shri Chhabi Ram Kashyap r/o Graro ; Hasani Tah : Lormi Distt: Bllaspur CG - VERSOS - STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ThEoiigh : The secretary to the Govt. of CG Department of Panchayat D.K.S. Bhavan : Mantralaya Raipur CG The Chief Executive Officer Tah - Lormi ^ Distt- Bilaspur CG Gram Panchayat : Masana Through : The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat- Masana Tah-Lormi Distt - Bilaspur CG y <». WRIT PETITION ONDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TBE CXjaSTVEOTICm OF JXmT.St J^2_^ XI-HC-78 sn^n w R-I craTsn^Tr^iif. *ii*ini shKi<*> 3FS^ •<ll<llc<<l, axnwis, Iqciwy ^^ .^.^^^.s.^'^'^f 200 W^Stl 4sltb ('i«^'s«^') e^iTwnfer-ai^T 12-8-2009 Shri Anurag Shrivastava,| Shri Satish Gupta, respondenis No-1 and 2. Haard on admisslon. Facts of the case are adnt A short point invoived in | No.3, Gram Panchayat, was en| of Panchayat Karmi without hoii] ChhaBisgarh Panchayat Servii (^sfQjfi^ftgF fQfsrrsd to as thl invoived, therefors. ii Is decidedl stage itseff. Notice is not being i; impugned order is whoiiy per| However. jf respondent No,3 stiii No.3 wii! be ai iiberty to 'nove i.A| Ths case of ths peiition< Panchayat Karmi in the Gram Biiaspur yjde order dated 2.5.2Q compSainS against the petitioner amount of Rs. 15-30 and Rs.^ Card. Based on the compiai Psnch^yst srsd Ssinsj Shiksh^ conduct enauiry and he submil Officer, same was forwarded to issuance of tne notices pass: +l<<tcf4)-l tilldTfffeiA <R|^K Slisri^Hsn^T counsei for tfte petlttoner. eputy Govt. Advocate for the State/ litted. |this case Is that as to whether respondent ptied to remove the petitioner from the post iing enquiry as snvisaued in Ruie 7 of the ^e (DJ-scipfJne and Appeal) Ru!es, 1S99 Ruies, 1Soy), thus on!y tegal poini is |to deci'ae {he writ petition at the admission ^ued to respondenf No.3 because the t/erse anti contrary to the Ruies, 1998. feels aggrieved by this order, respondent for rscaijing ofihi's order. is that he was appoinisd on ths post of panchayat Masana, Tehsi! Lormi, Dlstrict >, Annexure-P'6. Some yillagers made a stating that She petitSoRer has taten an from the viilagers for issuance of Ration ;ht. Executiye Officer asked L.?M'. Ajiant (Ssngathak, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi to ted report Annexurs-P/7 to the Executive (he respondent No.3, Sarpanch, who after ^d resoiution in the Qram Sabha on 2005 30(1) IL'/ 7 / XI-HC-78 sn^TwR-fi* gSIT3<l^l St)*f 3^T ^II^W^, »TflwiS,I°l<!1l'tty *11*1WI ^*ll<h ^ 200 Stl^ifl Ma«n(l?il3°"<tT) gRtTWHferan^T ^ 13.3.2006 vide Annsxure-P/51 Panchayat Karm! anci sam^ 18.3.2006, Annexure-P/6. Further case of the petif terminaied Wiihout obssr/lng proper procedure as enyisaged| !t is admitted position trt post of Panchayat Karmi, no ei|! as per fhe provisions of Rute Penafties i.e. Minor Penaffies under ths catsgory of .Major ^. imposing maicr penaities. SuM on a member of tns Panchaya| ciause (Iv) to (via) of Ruie 5 s? is iieta as Tar as may &e, in in^ tays down that the disciplinarvl ths bssis of siisg^tiQHs snd sh| the statemsnt of aiteaations, to ateo require him to submit, wittl siatement of defence and aiso person. Sub-ruis (3) envisagesl be heid shail, for the purpose inspect a.nd take extracts from (4) prescribes that on rsceipt oj SuCH StatSiTi^ii'L i3 HOt rSCdVSCi authority may himseif enquire ir or appoint any Enquiry CIrricer «bl<lli'l41-ltlltldt'ffrs'^'l tRl«l< iTSlf^TSn^T removing the petitioner from the post of was conflrmed vide resolutlon aateti ioner is that the petmoner's services were princlpies of !av,', Ignoring and fouowlRg in the Rules. 1999. tr|at before removing the petitioner from the Iquiry was conauctea against the petiti'oner |7 of the Rutes, 1999. Ruie 5 prescribes |and Maj'or Penaities and remova! comes Flenaities. Ruie-7 prsscribss procsdure for [rvt',e (1) iays eiown that 'no order, imposino Service, any of the penaities specmed in silai! be passed excepi after a formai inquiry mannsr hereinafter provltieci. Sub-rute (2) authority shall frame Definite charges on sh^ll communlcst0 such chsrgss, siong with |ihe membsr of the Panchavat Ser«'!ceand pn such tiiTio ss ?nay bc sp^cl^cd a writtsri to state whether he desires to be neard in |{hat the person against whom inquiry Is to |of preparing the dafence, be permitted to ^uch records ss he may specify. Sub-rute ths writtsn statement of defence o,r if any iA^i+(Ai"s ^n£i *'mj& £*t»A•*•'?!.&.*< *.^^^ --i"*j»?*»li»'«! witnin the tims soscitiecf, thc discjolirtar^ (to such of the charges as are not admitted (o hold the inquir,' snd forward to him h!s ^s XI-HC-78 STI^ITtf^lN; tm3T1^5Isb1 3^ •:i|l's|l<'l'il, »Tn<i'iG,&<iwy HI*1CTI 9i*n<itl W[ 200 3ll^:(l <<atn (li?<!^stSt;T) 5RITW;HfeT3n^T ~-f2>- report and, if advised, his sdses bb evidertce /\\ oaoers. Sub-ruie (5) envis^gi nominate any person to preserjt the Enquiry Officer- Sub-ruie] Panchayat Ssp/ics dssirss to he so desirss or if the discip!insjry be heid by the Enquiry Officer. to such of the aiiegations as shail be entitled to cross-examil to produce documentary St£ hs msv wish. Sub'fuls (7^ inquiry, the Enquiry Officsr shafi his ftndings on each of the chdi ruie (8) envisages ihat the pr<] charged shat! contain a sufficisrjt (i) the charges framed aiiegations; the wrlttsR staismsni the oral evidence taMn the documentary ev| inquiry; the orders, if any, maitle authorifr/ as the case ("} (iir. (iv) (V) maitle therefor. The Enquiry Officer shs msntioned In ciause (8) to the' •*l<llfl<fl-f 4|t|dTft'Is'<rl <R|^AK ^i3ri^IT3TI^T r^commendation aiong with al! the inquiry s^ges tha; the dlsctpilnary authority may ar|t the case in support of the charges before I (6) further says that if the servant of the hsard in psrson, hs shaii bs so hsard. !f authorifry so dirccts, an orai enquiry shall |At such inquiry evidence shaii be heard as ^re not admitted and the person charged ihe She witness, to yive evidence in person, i, -if any, and to have such Wttne-ss c-alted 7R snvisagss that at Uie concius'on of the isfi prepare a rsport of the inquh"y', recording |rges together with reasons therefor. Sub- (jiceedlngs conducted agasnst the persons recorci of against such person and the stateme-nt of sf defsnce if any; ;n in the course of the inquiry, BTi dence considered in the cour5e of the by the Enquir^ OfRcer or the disciplinary ^nay be with regard to t'ne inqulry; (vi) a report setting out th]e findings on each charge and the reasons ii submit the records of the proceedings disciplinary authortty and the discipllnar/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S^^^S^^^^B^^^^^^^^ @E XI-HC-78 sn^TqiTf^-tre (iaiT3TR?TstiH . Barve Tar^ll'yid^, ^Tnwis, Kctwy *<l*<wi sb*llth ^200 3<1^!!1 ysl«<>(*tc«t3°»<<.'ET) WdTWB^TSTI^T ~ authority shal! fumish copy of| ciiargsd anti thereafter trte representation, if any made hfe/ notice and determine the penaity- Nons of ths aboy®provfeions Ths iinpu^ned oru^r is ©xfs^ therefore, same deserves to be ':n the resuit, the writ rt< quashed. However, respon<jent conducting the inquiry afre^ consonance with ths Rutes, 19^8. Sn view ofthis order, M.CA', Parties are entltied for <*>i4itft41-f HitidT^Ts'4 <Ri<-ci< SRsiRftan^T the report of Enquiry Qfficer to the person ciiscipiinary authority shaii consider the the person charged in response to the has bsen complisd with In this case. fje iliegal and contrary te the Rules, 1999, [^uashed. (etltion is aliowed and impugned order is fent No.3 shail not be prevented from ^h and passing appropriate orders in ^9. No ordsf 35 to costs. f.'.)P. No.1925/2006 stands disposed of. i|tifted copy ofthis order. eerti Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge