FOOLCHAND BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE was issued on 26.4.2003 and Dasti service was also permitted in addition to usual mode of service. All the respondents were duly served. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner while working as Panchayat Karmi was removed by order dated 31.8.2002 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband in Case No. 01/A/89/2002 -2003. The Sub Divisional Officer, after having considered all the aspects came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing as enshrined in Rule 7 of C.G. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules"). Accordingly, the Sub Divisional officer by order dated 2.11.2002 (Annexure P/ 2) quashed the order dated 31.8.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2. In revision filed by the respondent No. 2 against the order dated 2.11.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the Additional Collector, Gariyaband by order dated 10.2.2003 (Annexure P/3) quashed the order dated 2.11.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer without assigning any reason on the ground that since the Panchayat Karmi was removed on account of the resolution of Gram Panchayat, no appeal would lie to Sub Divisional Officer. The Additional Collector, Gariyaband has quashed the order in a casual manner without examining all the facts of the case. Learned counsel further submits the petitioner was not gainfully employed else during this period.

(2.) BE that as it may, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi. It is not the case of the respondents that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner or any procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules was followed before the impugned order was passed. A Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 25.7.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1656 of 2004 and this Court in its order dated 15.11.2006 passed in W.P. No. 1850 of 2001, have held that Rule 7 of the Rules have to be followed in the case of termination of a Panchayat employee. This Court in Dhaluram Kosaria vs. State of C.G. & Others, : 2006 (2) CGLJ 186, Beegan Ram vs. State of C.G. & Others,, 2006 LT CG 41 and Prakash Chand Soni vs. State of C.G. & Others,, 2006 LT CG 151 held that the noncompliance 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 of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India also. The order of removal, being penal in nature, visiting with civil consequences, cannot be passed without holding the enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. 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 order dated 10.1.2003 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Additional Collector, Gariyaband, is quashed.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts situation of the case when the petitioner does not have sufficient source to perform other functions, in the interest of justice grant of 30 % back wages would be sufficient, keeping in view the fact that the termination order has been vitiated not on merit, but, on account of non -compliance of the statutory provisions before terminating the services of the petitioner. 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 petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.