ANJU BALA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Sahayak in the year 1999 on contract basis at Gram Panchayat, Choli, Development Block, Paragpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. She was designated as Panchayat Secretary (Contract) vide letter dated 2.8.2008. Respondent No. 4 issued a notice to the petitioner dated 24.9.2013. She was also served with notice on 7.11.2013 by respondent No. 4. She was served with another notice on 4.1.2014. The Assistant Commissioner (Development) -cum -Block Development Officer, informed the petitioner that the independent charge of Gram Panchayat Kuhna was assigned to her but she failed to execute the time bound work and she was directed to hand over the whole charge of Gram Panchayat Kuhna to Sh. Kewal Krishan Panchayat Secretary, Rakkar. She was informed on 17.2.2014 that her work was not satisfactory and specific instances were stated therein vide registered letter. The petitioner was informed as to why the action under Rule 137(2) Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997, be not initiated against her. The petitioner was also permitted to file reply to the same within a week. She was called upon to appear before respondent No. 4 on 15.5.2014 at 11:00 AM vide Annexure R -5 dated 12.5.2014. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 24.5.2014 vide Annexure P -6.

(2.) IT is evident from the plain language of sub rule (2) of Rule 137 that before imposing any penalty the employee shall be informed of the specific charges against him and shall be given a reasonable opportunity to explain his position or produce any evidence. Sub -rule (5) provides that CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, as amended from time to time, shall apply to the servants of a Panchayat in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

(3.) THE Additional Deputy Commissioner has passed the order terminating the petitioner vide Annexure P -6 dated 24.5.2014 in haste. He should have waited at least up to 5:00 PM to enable the petitioner to appear before him and explain the position. The reason assigned by the petitioner of not reaching the office of respondent No. 4 in time at 11:00 AM was that there was traffic jam at Kangra. This explanation is plausible.