i9^ [^^ Hf©HCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR WritPetition No. 4671 of 2005 Petitfoner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Rohit Kumar Jangcte, S/o Shri Jethuram Jangde, aged about 36 years, Occupation - Servtee, Worldng as Panchayat Karmi (Secretery), Gram Panchayat- Mudva Bhatha, Janpad Panchayat- Saranggarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.). The State of ChhatUsgarh, Through ttie Secretary, Panchayat and Social WeWare Department, Manfralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ratpur (C.G.) The Oirector, Pancha^t & Sodal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Oeputy Diredor, Panchayat & Social WeBare, Disbict- Raigarh (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, Ksbict- Raigarh (C.G.) Gram Panchayat Mudva Bhata, Through fts Sarpanch, htodva Bhata, Bade, Tahsil - Sarangarh. Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Shri Sudarsharam Rameshri, ^istant Gram Panchayat Officer, Gram Panchayat Basin Behra, Tah^Sarangarh, Distt. Raigati. WRIT PETITON UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THECONSTITUTKWI OF INDIA SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotrt, J Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate wtth Shri Indrasen Sahu, Advocate (br the pefitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advocate for ttre respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the resportdent No.4. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the respondent No.5. Shri Shiv Kumar Guha, Advocate fbr ttte respondent No.6. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 12TH day of March, 2008) The present psfitfon, filed under ArUcte 226/227 of the ConsBtution of India, impugns the resotuSondated 15.6.2005 (Annexurs P/9), the order dated 22.8.2<X)5 (Annexure P/10) and the advertisement dated 25.8.20CB (Annexure P/11), on the ground that the senrices of the petitioner has besn terminated from the post of Panchayat Karmi, without foltowing the provisjons of law enshrtned tn Rute 7 of ttie ChhatUsgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and AppeaQ Rules, 1999 (forshorffteRutes, 1999"). The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appojnted as Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat Mudva Bhata and subsequently by order dated 19.12.19% (Annesaire P/1) the petitioner was directed to take ovsr the charge of the post of Panchayat Secretary. Thereafter.by prder dated 4.3.2005 (Anneiaire P/2) the petffioner was directed to hand over the charge ofthe post of Secretaryto the respondent No.6. The petitloner fited an applicatson on 10.3.2(K)5 ta- cancetlafionof the order dated 4.3.2(xi5. On the basis of that application, an enquiry was conducted and tte report was submittedby the Panchayat and Social Education Organizer, Sarangarh on 21.4.2005 (Annexure R4), w^iich go to show Uiat the removal of the petittoner from the post of Panchayat Karmi was not in accordance with taw. On the basis of the enquiry report, vkle order dated 26.5.2005 (Annexure P15) e order of removal of ttie petiUoner was sst asicte and charge was gwen to the petitioner on 27.6.2005 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter, on 11.6.20)5 (Annexure P/7) a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by 8ie respondent No.5. The peUBoner submitted his reply on 14.6.2005 (Annexure PI8). On 15.6.2005 a-i-.)4-li-I;. -l; ^.^Si—' f,/^^^ S6s'ss^. %1 'isS B ^ ^^./ '^-'f'i"~^-ft' (Annexure P/9) a resoiufion was passed by the Gram Panchayat, Mudva Bhata to remove the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, pursuantto which vide order dated 22.8.20)5 (Annexure P/10) Uie petifoner was directed to hand over the charge of the Sscretary. The respondents issued an adveitisement on 25.8.2005 (Annexure P/11) 1o (i!l up ttis post of Pancha^t Karmi (Secretary). Hence the pettioner has preferred this peBtion. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit ttrat aWiough a show cause notice was issued to the petttioner, but that does not fulffll the requirement ofthe procedure as prescribed in Rute 7 of the Rules, 1999. whjch provides for following substantive procedure, before tsrminaBng service of a member ofttie Panchayat. in the instant case, <fte said prowsions were not foltowed, no definite charges were framed and the pefit'ioner was not served witti the artictes ofchargss before hofding an enquiry leading to termination dS the petitioner from his services. The petitioner has fiied an application (I.A.No.1) on 18.9.2(X}7 for quashing of the order dated 29.6.2005 (Annexure R-4/11). Learned counse! appearing for the pefitioner submite that the respondent No.4 in its retum has filed the order dafed 29.6.2005, passed by the Gram Panchayat, Mudvabhata, that the senrices of ttie petitioner was terminated and the petifioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Kamif on the basfe of ttie resoluUon ctated 15.6.2005. Since this order was not served upon the petitioner, the pstitioner had not challenged the same in the instant pefitjon. Lsamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submlt 8iat the tsrmination order was passed on the basis of the allegaton ttiat the petifioner had committed certain financial irregularities and had ,.^eac"'e's^.,. ,5?.^'"^ ^ /'&.. "al ^ ^ '•^^^"^ s^ "'Ce^^-^' ^ "'v / i\%^^f 8. 9. taken disadvantage of his position. Thus, th®order is sUgmattc and removal from service comes within <he purview of major penatty, tiie same coutd not have been passed without following the procedure as laid down in the provisions of law. as presCTibed in Rute 7 <rf the Rutes 1999. Leamed counset appearing for the petitioner cfted a decision of this Court in Sobhnathram Mehto Vs. State of ChhatBsgarh & others (order dated 22.1.2008 in W.P.No. 2834 of 2006). Shri Satish Gupte, leamed counsel appearing for <he respondents No. 1 to 3 would categorically submit that OT perusal of the papers it is evident tftat the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of ttie Rules, 19^, have not been foltowed. The petffioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi and was directed to take over 1h®charge of ttie post of Secretary on 19.12.1^5 and wiBrout Wlowing ttie due process of law, the peBtioner has been removed on 22.8.2005, which is not sustainabte in law. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for ttie respondsnt No.5 submits ftat the appointonent of Shri Gajendra Kumar Bhardwaj w the post of Panchayat Karmi was on ad-hoc basis, during the pendency of tttis pefiBon. Thus. he has no right to hotd the post., Admittedly, before passing the impugned termination order e concemed authority has not compliedwitti ttie provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. This Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. Stete ofC.G. & others , Beegan Ram Vs. State of C.G. & othare2 and Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State of C.G. & othrs3 has hetd that ttie non compliance of tt>e statutoiy proviaons and denial of principles of natural justice tantamounts to inftacfon of not only the provisions of Rute 7 of the Rutes, 1999 but the provisions of Arficle 31 1 (2) of the ;^'T^^^^ ; ; ; csa(u ; 10. 11 12. ConsBtution of Indiaalso. The order of removal being penat in nature, vistting with cwil (evi!) consequences, cannot be passed without holding the enquiry in accordance with e eiaborate provisions, as prescribed in Rule 7ofthe Rules.1999. It is thus clear that ttie respondente have not foltowed the statutory provisions of !aw before passing the impugned order. On the question of back wages, no foundation has been laM to establish ttie fact that whelfter the petitloner was gainfulty employed elsewhere or not during ftis period. Even otheroise, keeping in view that the termination order has been vitiated not on merit but on account of non-compliance of the statutory provlslons before terminating the services of the petitioner, 30% back wages would be sufficient in the interest ofjusfice. In vtew of ths foregoing, ttie peffiion is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.6.2(X)5 (Annexure R-4/11) and order dated 22.8.2005 (Annexure P/10) are quashed. No costs. Sd/- Sarish K.Agnihotri Judge 1. 2. 3. Thalair 2006 (2) C.G.L.J. 1861 2006 L.T. (C.G.).412. 2005L.T.(C.G.)1513