RAJKUMAR KURRE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 18.5.2005 (Annexure - A/8) whereby the order dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure - A/5) passed by the Director, Panchayat, removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary was confirmed and order dated 13.2.2005 (Annexure - A/7) whereunder on the basis of resolution of Gram Panchayat Markadih, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District Janjgir, services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi was terminated.

(2.) The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that a complaint was made on 26.06.2004 against the Sarpanch and the petitioner, the then Panchayat Karmi (Secretary), making various allegations, upon which, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Janjgir conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 09.07.2005 (Annexure P/1). Again an enquiry was made by the Naib Tahsildar who submitted his report on 29.09.2004. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare issued a show cause notice on 05.11.2004 (Annexure A/3) asto why his services may not be terminated. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 22.11.2004 (Annexure A/4). Thereafter, the Deputy Director passed the final order canceling the notification of appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary and thereby removing him from service by order dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure A/5). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director, Panchayat. The Director, Panchayat, granted an order of stay on 21.12.2004 (Annexure A/6). However, the order of stay was vacated later on. In the meantime, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, remove the petitioner from the post of Pancahyat Karmi also by order dated 13.02.2005 (Annexure A/7), which is sought to be impugned by amendment of the petition, as ordered on 08.08.2010. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed on 18.03.2005.

(3.) Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of removal was passed relying upon the report submitted by the Naib Tahsildar, without application of mind, as neither the statements of the beneficiaries were recorded nor their signatures were verified. Further, on the same allegations, which were leveled against the Sarpanch, only an order of recovery was made whereas, the petitioner has been terminated from service.