CTT IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( ^ l N0. IA^ OF 2008/ PETITIONER : 77' • Kalyan Singh, S/o Lalman Patel, aged about 50 years, Panchayat Secretary (removed), Gram Panchayat Dhaurabhatha, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS : ^~ \Q k^\'- .^ ^^-/ •^-y'^ "vl ^'~ ^~ ^ J}^ .^y 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG). ^"•" 2. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG). €'"' 4. Gram Panchayat, Dhaurabhatha, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG), through Sarpanch ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^L^———-—— —- ^ '^y. HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 43 OF 2009 PETITIONER Kalyan Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri N.N. Roy, Advocate for the respondent No.4.. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 22nd day ofApril, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi (Secretary). Subsequently, by impugned resolution dated 3-7-2006 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Gram Panchayat, Dhaurabhata, which was approved by the Gram Sabha dated 14-7-2006 (Annexure - P/2), services of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi was terminated. The petitioner has impugned the said resolution and approval in this writ petition on the ground that the impugned resolution and approval terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi was passed without following the provisions enshrined in Rule 7 of C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules"). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Rule 7 provides for detailed procedure for imposing major penalties i.e. removal from service. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, removal from service comes within the purview of major penalty. ^^^^^,,, ^'' ..^Ws"^ ^^. ^ ^' Ife^^.- I ^Wi^ J l^ ^jy1-/ ^ m^^' ^ i^ Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that admittedly, the procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules was not followed. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30-6-2006 (Annexure - R/4C). Be that as it may, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi. It is not the case of the respondents the procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules was followed before the impugned order was passed. A Division Bench ofthis Court in its order dated 25.07.2006 passed in W.P. No. 4^56 of 2004, and this Court, in its order dated 15.11.2006, passea .r>. No. 1850 of 2001, have held that Rule 7 of the Rules have iw De followed in the case of termination of a Panchayat employee. This Court in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State ofC.G. & Others1, Beegan Ram Vs. State ofC.G. & Others2, and Prakash Chand Soni Vs. State of C.G. & Others3, held that the non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justice tantamount to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, but, the provisions ofArticle 311 (2) ofthe Constitution of India also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting the civil consequences, cannot be passed without holding the enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. It is thus clear that the respondents have not followed the statutory provisions of law before imposing the major penalty of removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. For the reasons and the discussion made hereinabove, and the dicta laid down by the Court in various cases (supra), the impugned resolution dated 3-7-2006 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Gram ^'^ ^ "^ "^ w% ]• %J./ ^^.^' 8. Panchayat, Dhaurabhata and jmpugned approval of Gram Sabha dated 14-7-2006 (Annexure - P/2), are bad and are,quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondents from initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, if they are so advised, strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly, the writ petitionis allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. __ Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1.2006(2)CGU186 2. 2006 LT CG 41 3.2005LT(CG)151