PRAKASH CHANDRA PATEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.1.2003 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated from the post of Panchayat Karmi. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Panchayat Karmi on 15.12.1995 by the Gram Panchayat Chhuchhubhata and since then he is working on the post of Panchayat Karmi. On 4.11.2002, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chhuchhubhata called his explanation regarding discharge of duties. The petitioner submitted his reply on 6.1 J.2002 which is Annexure P/3. Thereafter, the Sarpanch again called for further explanation vide Annexure-P/4 from the petitioner on the ground that the explanation offered by him is not clear and truthful to which the petitioner replied on 8.11.2002 vide Annexure-F/5. In the meeting dated 8.11.2002 Panch of village Panchayat namely, Vijay Lai snatched the Panchayat Karyawahi Register from the petitioner at the instance of Sarpanch. Against which the petitioner made complaint to respondent No. 4 on 11.11.2002 against Saipanch and Panchas as per Annexure P/6. Again the meeting of the Panchayat was held on 14.11.2002 in which the Sarpanch along with Padmalochan, Vidyadhar, Chandan Singh, Uhagwat and Jitram had taken forcibly Gram Sabha Register and Gram Sabha Upasthiti Panji from the petitioner, against which the petitioner made complaint on 15.11.2002 to respondent No. 2 and to the Police Station Dabhra on 16.11.2002. Copy of the same is Annexure-P/7.

(2.) On 25.11.2002, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 18.11.2002 issued by respondent No. 4 for making an enquiry against the petitioner regarding complaint in six points. Copy of the notice is Annexure-P/8. But, no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner upon which the enquiry was proposed to be conducted. Respondent No. 4 recorded the statement of Sarpanch and Panchayat and thereafter the petitioner was called upon to explain on 15.1.2003 vide Anncxure-P/9 of which the petitioner submitted his reply on 23.1.2003. A Panchayat meeting was called on 27.1.2003 and the petitioner was called with all the records. Copy of those Panchayat meeting is Annexure-P/11. On 28.1.2003 to remove the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, a Gram Sabha meeting was convened against which the petitioner moved the Sub-Divisional Officer and the S.D.O. granted stay. But, in spite of that the respondents removed the petitioner by meeting dated 28.1.2003.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that respondents removed the petitioner without following the procedure .prescribed in Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter-referred to as the Rules, 1999). The disciplinary authority was required to follow the Rule 7 of the said Rules for imposing major penalty. But, that was not adopted and the services of the petitioner were terminated in arbitrary and discriminatory manner without following the procedure.