ROHIT KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 29.6.2009 (Annexure P1), passed by the Collector, Kabirdham, whereby, the appeal (wrongly mentioned as Revision Petition) preferred by the Petitioners against the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bodla on 27.9.2008, rejecting the case of the Petitioners filed against the order of their termination, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III, at Primary School, Loop and Bairakh under Janpad Panchayat, Bodla, District Kabirdham (CG) vide order dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure P2). The Petitioners immediately assumed the office as Shiksha Karmi and continued to work till the services of the Petitioners were abruptly terminated vide order dated 27.9.2008 (Annexure P3), passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bodla. The said order was questioned by the Petitioners before the Collector, Kabirdham in an appeal under Sec. 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Collector vide his order dated 29.6.2009 dismissed the said appeal, leading to filing of the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned order of termination as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority is bad in law for the reason that, the termination of the Petitioners was in total violation of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1999'). He further submits that, the law in this regard is by now well settled by a catena of decisions wherein it has been held that for the purpose of terminating an employee whose services are governed under the Rules of 1999, the Respondent authorities are required to comply with the procedure prescribed under Rule 7. Having not done so, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside on this ground.