V- ft'''~' w '^:; i^%^^^l ^^K^^BI {-^ys W.ErS^.Nb.^^g 72006 PETH-IONER ^^^ -^y^ ^ 0^.^% .^^^" ^^>tf'... ^^..-••'' ^»® RESPONDENTS Molid. SfaaifManon S/oSimTaEH-Mohd. Agedabout34yegis R/o VillageSohagpiir Via- Champa, Distt. Korba (C.O.) VERSUS : 1) StateofChhattisgarhliB'oughthe Seeictary, Paflchayat & Rurd Developmeat Dq)artment D.K.S. BNvan, Raipur (C^ 2) TheSepulyDireetorPmchayatand Sociat Welfare, KorBa (C-G.) 3) ChiefExecutivfiOfficer BioclEKarfala. Distt. KoAa(C.G.) 4) (jraai Pfflehayat, Sohagiur fhrou^ itsSatpaneh.Post-Sofaagpua-, Distt.Korba(C.Cj.) WMT PETNION BNBiERAfiTICLE 2M /227 OB'THE CONSTmJTTOiN ^ GE INMA.YS^^ ISSUANCE .OF'-.-WRri'.W ..THE: HATNRE^ OF, fy 1 CESXSmASl.MAffUAMVS. QJ'^ CEW ^y[',^y •OKBESS, ^ QR 1WMTS. 'ANBOTBERSCTrABI^;, OR DHIECTIONS. OBDER OR ^^ ^K- HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARMATBtLASPUR SIN6LE BENCH : HON'BUE MR.SAT1SH K.AGtNIHOTRI.,1. WRFT PETmON (8.1 N04858 OF 2006 •"X ^ PeUBoner Resoondents versus Mohd. Sharif Memon State <rf Ohhatfisgarh and etheis Present : Mr.P.S.KoshywithMr.VmodDeshmukh.oounsetfcirthe petitfener. Mr.Arvind Dubey, Panell-awyerforttieStaWTespondents No.1and2. Mr.H.B.ABraMral.SsniorAdvocatewithMr.J.K.Qupla, counset for c^porwtent No.4. None appearsforrespondentNo.3. •1-<- .-^. ORDER (Passed on 23"' Day of January, 2007) The petitionerwas initially appointod on ttie po^ of PantAayat Karmi vide order dsrted 28-10-1995 (Annexure P-1). The peBioner was appointed as Panchayat Secrrtary also under SeGtien 69(1) of the Madhya Pradesh/ChhatSsgarh Panchayat Servicft (Disciptina anct Appaa^ Rules, 1999 (henceforth'theRutes. 1998') vide orderdatBd 16-1-1997 (^aanexure P-3). Subsequently,videimpugnedorcterdated18-5-200&(AnnexuFeP-5>, ttie services of the petiUoner was renioved from the post of F^inehayat Karmiffiecretary on the basis of a resotutioBpassedon 17-5-2006. The •<5 f~ ^' peBtroner has impugned the orctef dated 18-5-2006 (Annexure petiSon. 2. Leamed counsel appearir^ Tor ttie parties wouldjoirtly submit ^ - Uiat ttie Issue uncter consicteratton Is squarely Govered by ttre ordw dated 18-8-2006 (Annexure P-8) pass^ by thts Court 'mThakwRamPatet vs. StateafChhaWsgarti and offtere OMritPeUtion (S.) No.4373 of 2006). 3. As per <he provislons of Rute 7 ef the Rules,19TO, the disci(rimary author'rty Is requirect to frame (tefinitB charges ®nthe basis of the allegations and shall eommunicate sueh chaiges, along wtth the Statementoftheallegations.tothememberofUiePanchaysrtServieeand atso require him to submit wtthin such time as may be specBleel, a written statement of detence and also to ^ate whether he desires to be heard m person and after reeeipt of the written statement of ttie defen^ the disciplhftary airthority may Wmsetf enqutee tnto sudi ctarges as are not admiUedorappointanenquiryoffleertoholdiheenqBiryandforoiardtohim his report. 4. In the presentease, admUedly.notiee was Issuedto appear before the Panehayat, but formal enquiry, as contemplated tmder Rule 7 of the Rutes, 1^9, was notdone before passing eiin(M.igned wder dated 18-5-2006 (Annexure P-% remeving the petitionw from the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary. Ttius, tfie impugned order is iltegat and contrary to the provlsions of ttre Rules, 1999. The sams deserves to be quashed. ___ '^ ':^:-^;. -..^r'^-^^'^'^s^^yi^^v'^y: •^.^^?1V>^N^-^'SiK/'f^-B^?^^ 5. As a result, thisRefitiOB is alloWed aheli e mtpugBsdOKler dsrted 1&5-2006 (Annacure P^) is quashed. However, ttiis orderwill not come in ttie way ofthe respondents te initiate |»oeeedlngs atresh, ffse advised, inaccorclance wfth law agalnst the petiUonw. No wder as to costs. Sd/- f Satish K. Agnihotri i Judge M "^ i. aStBte