^ 1^'° -..»••";•: ^^fg^-. ^^r:)^5""".^^ TOTT to^ItS: yw^^c^)- S. AT (C.G.) WJ. No:-/26'<-/2-c,i'2BBi [Ti •J) Agesliwar Das son ot AachaB Das Pancliayat kanui, Gram Panchayat BfkeBhaiaar, Tahsit Gunir, District (C.G.) Rssiioiidgate i 'Vs. State of ChhatBsga'Ii, tiu'("ieii secretary FanchayatE'vaui Sndal JnsBee, (C.GJ \^ ^ Cnltector, Uwe Disfa'ici 'C.G.'j EV: iai jn.snte, rg (C.G.) Cluet' Execufive Ut'fiter, Janpafl Paaehayat Gurnr (C.G.] :.3 S. Smt. Bai wife ofketeshwa' Netaia, Sarnaath Graa Panthayat kofihanar, ^ Tlssips s' Aj^&as \ ^•*. ^- „ „ ^.€. Gi'ain Pauchayat kofilaauas-, Secretar%', Gra'ai koBhamar, Tahsa Garai', DistrictBurg (C.G.) O" WRIT OF THE c 3R Of 1UJ OF RI ETC. OR ANY OTHE] D J;CTION t:>R O s XI-HC-78 t-n^CII sh*ll<»» 3sr^pn?pr, ^Tfly'iii, fainiyy T(N;Wf.^...<3fc<..^20(^ W^l tldcb (<ic<t3'sl^) SD^TWf^N cPTT 3IR?T giIIRi ^BiRRHtitrsncRT 21-7-2006:- Shri Anil Pandey, counset fcji Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Go^ respondents No.1 to 3, on advanc^ l-1eard both the counsel. By the instant petition, th^ the Additional Collector allowed th dated 11"' July 2005 passed by t|ie Additional Collector, Durg whereby i^ revision filed by ttie Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kolihamar and quash^d the order of Sub Dwlsional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer vide ortler dated 1-6-2004 quashed the order of the Gram Panchayat Kolih^ respondent/petitioner herein from tl| It is admitted position that ] govemed under the Chhattisgar^ Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short th^ mentioned in the Rules 5 (b) cart procedure of enquiry as envisage^ the present case, admittedly, befo] the petitioner, no such procedui Panchayat. Perusal of Uie impugned resolution No.1 dated 29-4-2004 th not been adopted, therefore, the Wilfo'ft.T TOR?ftffecfl :cfsRSR: SRaiRpTsn^r the peUtioner. ernment Advocate for the State/ copy. petitioner has questioned the order mar dated 5-5-2004 removing the >e post of Panchayat Karmi. the services of Panchayat Karmi are Panchayat Servtee (Discipline and Rules, 1999) and major penalties as be imposed only after fottowing the under Rule 7 of the Rutes, 1999. In |re imposing the penalty of removat of (e has been adopted by the Gram order dated 5-5-2004 whereby the petiUoner was removed from the pc|st of Panchayat Karmi shows that vide ^ petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi. Since fte procedure as envi^aged in Rule 7 ofthe Rutes, 19^ has t>rder Anne)aire-13/2 of fte Sarpanch, GraiTL_Panchayat, Kotihamar is wjthout jurisdidion and if this order is P.T.O. XI-HC-78 <-m^TTai^Tcb ssT^rraRW, aTfl'M'is, Rii'iiuy »* * * T'*T* »"*****|l/**»»*»*^ 200 3TT^?r4dtb (t':lt^siq<T) sn^TqiTR.fjtti (PIT 31R?T gRIIR; .Barve ^ -i^ ^' ?TcITWnf?tT3n^T "'TJ1,- <tii'iifct41-i tii*idTfftetA<Ri+<;i< ^a.ri^irsii^T allowed to exist, then same woutc) amount to failure of jusUce, as such, this petition is being disposed of |at ttie admission ^age iteelf because issuance of notice to respondents l|ilo.4 to 6 will amount to further delay of the proceeding. However, Yespon|dents No.4 to 6 sUtl feel aggrieved by " this order, <hen they will be at libe^ty to file an application for recalling of this order. In the resutt, the writ petitio(i is allowed and the ordere passed t>y the Additional Collector dated 11-7|-20CB and Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kolihamar dated 5-5-2004 are <j competent authority shall be at petitioner under the Rules, 199^ and thereaftsr to take appropriate decision, in accordance with law. tn view ofthis order, M.(W.)lf>. No.2796/2006 stands disposed of. Parties are entitled for certifi^d copy of this order uashed. It is made clear that the iberty to initiate enqulry against the Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge P.T.O.