Dismissed

Santu Ram Markam v. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2007WPS/636/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an interim order staying the appointment of a Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer's and Additional Collector's orders reinstating a removed employee while an appeal remained pending before the Additional Collector. The Court held no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed summarily; no order as to costs.

Santu Ram Markam Vs Sarpanch Gram Panchayat and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

¶1

s-i J.1I 'i •':•]. ''t:, ;s sL^ ,/JI 'li^ .^/ >';:1 ^y^k••^.,»s^st^"s^f' 'ti'-1' jy s H Ki l"~j U5 t"":< i;:d \WI Vi'^ Q 17' ^X^T3. ;?'' <!^,,..| 5y^:...l ^^••^ .0>-^ . tfl Ki c31 ^€....\ ¥'^. '<» . »ll <' lll ^ -Si inwiil ^.'^ •'1;1 lfn>"(,ill..l \ Vi ,im,, \ llul N:i Cn l.t;. o.;i zd s3 (-/:!£ff^'....i'"'iE:,.„,>-("'^•' i-!;:i^'•0 113'"sil.J.I/'':-^.1-S:>1 >!?•6-p.1. E?o3i.<* i:a^> v(?[„.I:'::!,..]..IJ'J sCDFti.c'ot'K' wg2!"•'•'U) 1-lj cI""'" U) ^,,nrt" --1G|!&,."t""1'?3'EB •t. s.,^.j?s'(fl^lr'^l>o^'..rf"lqlllurirtf.[nrfrirtl. '-^.(ft'0".'io1.1.;?' p;l"K"i;flE?t'^1-?1'.'€ ';••"'n OTv^l'iP-.!;»!?C;lp(:'")l»rf,. '•1:1.1S-p-1^"o .5gr-1-l"Cl1:1:1&„.t"l;!-? n'^"5"i'p y-('D (f.C.;l(iff^ o. ..s0<)y,&'3p.1.!IIo1-1;1,-lf.. J^..¥""" j:iLw1""'''c\wQ .§''TJI§.-.1E? <]IT']s]|UNUI| oU)r".i"!"t^..]";! f"t"' '^§fR;;B "§.fa ^ §. O tiijsl®.8C> ,^'"'^.0('fo yl o" <f,,^.s !:l-ij!;a -Iol.t)•"!:.r"l-!.4B('-(!;»i,.i;[;li'T)^•< j3^;i> i""'"'f^.f5>10(ii;:i;,«,[..:^C.,1f"1;!K't.Illf^I,m rt"u(?^s.1i?w?I'-''"'•" ^i'"i^a? "Cti^•-d ;>&-.gt^t:J-ls<P w §"?3-!;;s?§ i^ 1-::.«1Ej'^s-" ,,1,1;^^:;(^(•••l ^iKli;••<l lii<!!^'^iiiiln ,f)lll"ll,"IIIIBI1*I'T'Iill"«'.l»m"h,1-1,1(.1.;111 \»f.,lf"*—'l,pl«"l1(111'lllUtl;||)IUIU|c"^:6>-^IUU] w. |,»A t?"^> II'EI tfl.t' [-1; .. &1.., '("")11 1-<:1i^: 1(,,.ilh7' 'i-l 1..1., ^.tt?5. siCtio I:[iflltl ):-::t s g;J1-? n ;? o ..i-!'JlhluJ*^• OT'f"&; ty^F's,N ^0)^w 1 illl|Wl]&'[ri l,.l,. o,;;)„ t"lII>••!; us?l-1"'I:";!s t-1; l? B'o3 ^r,' I't)t"<" (ilR,..j g"Ei i;"art' ^rji 1"^"'t? >'i;i ?e.f""u1''Q Ji)("t'::?S:l<. w®' j:j ii": (Ji)i;i i?) ).-<; &s.. r"ii" §1y c\ mi^l5 '•..!-!1r"+"];»l-1i 1 n 'f^" ?s9 .R.;:s

¶2

¶3

¶4

FETITION LTNDE1 1 AKTICLE 226 CUNsTITUTION OF INDIA FOR TSSUANCT. OF

AJN D UTRPCTTOMR

AF/^

HISH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR

¶9

Writ Petition (5) No. 636 of

¶10

Petitioner Santu Ram Markam

¶11

Versus

¶12

Respondents Sarpanch, 6ram Panchayat and

¶13

others

¶14

Svngts Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri.

¶15

Pre^nt: AAr. Vidinu Koshta, Advocate for the petitioner. None oppears for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Arvind bubey, Ponel Lawyer for the respondents No. 4 d 5.

¶16

OftbER md (Passed^{on2m&ay ofpebruary,2007)}

¶17

The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

¶18

By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 2.5.2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Oievenue), Kondagaon, District-Bastar and order dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Additionoil Collector, Naroyanpur, District- Bastar.

¶19

The facts, in nutshell, are -ttiat the respondent No. 3 was removed by the generat body of the 6ram Panchayat <in its meeting held on 14.7.2004, from the post of Panchayat Secretary. The order of removal of respondent No. 3 was passed by Gfw.m Panchayat, which was approved by Snm 5abha in its meeting held on 20.7.2004

¶20

(Annexure P-1). In his place, the petitioner was dppointed as

¶21

Secretary of Gram Poinchayat, Palli by 6rom Panchayat, which was opproved by the Gram Sabha in its meeting, held on 7.9.2004 (Annexure P-2).

¶22

Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kondagaon, &istrict-Bastar under Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal ond Revision) Rules, 1995 (in short "Rules, 1995"). The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kondagaon, District-Bostar, after having heard and considering all the aspects of the matt-er came to the conclusion that the meeting of the Grom Sabha held on 20.7.2004 was not in accorckince with the provisions of laws, as such the order of removal of respondent No. 3 from the of Secretary wcis unpost constitutional ond nullity. Thus, the oppeal was allowed vide order dated. 2.5.2005 (Annexure P-4) directing reinstatement of the respondent No. 3 on the post of Secretary, 6ram Panchayat, Palli, Tahsit-Kondagaon, bistrict-Bastar.

¶23

¶24

The petitioner, being ag9rieved by the decision of the Sub-Diyisional Officer (Revenue), Kondagaon, District-Bastar preferred cn appeal before the Additional Collector, Naroyouipur, Oistrict-Bastar under Section 3(a) of the Rutes, 1995. The petitioner had furt-her filed arf opplication in the appeal before the Additional Collector, Naroyonpur, District-Bostar seek.mg stay of the order dated 1.8.2005 pcxssed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Ponchayat,

¶25

Kondagaon, District-Bastar, pursuont to order dated 2.5.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kondagaon, District-Bastar. The same was stayed during pendency of the appeal vide order dated 28.9.2005 (Annexure P-6). The said interim order dated 28.9.2005 was vaeated on 22.12.2006 (Annexure P-7), which is impugned in the in the present petition. It was stated that the removal of the respondent No. 3 was not in accor'dance with law, the principles of natural justice was not followed. Thus, the respondent No. 3 became entitled to be reinstated ori the post of Ponchayat Secretary.

¶26

¶27

The petitioner fited this petition impugning the order dated 2.5.2005 (Annexure P/4) and order dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure P/7). The sole contention of the petitioner is that once Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha have approved the appointment of -the petitioner on the post of Poinchayat Secretary, the order bscomes finat and there is no provision for appeal or revision. Leamed counsel relied on cireular dated 26.11.2002 (^nnexure P/3) wherein, it is provided that there is no provisioft for appeal or revision against the decision of Gram Panchayat which stands approved by Gram Sabha. The circular itself is contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1995, wherein it is clearly provided under Rule 3 that an appeal or revision is maintaincdble against the decision of 6ram Panchayat. Even otherwise removal of Panchayat Knrmis are govemed by Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and AppeaQ Rules, 1999 (for short "

¶28

Rules, 1999"), which is based on basic principles of. natural justice. The same cannot be taken away by <»ny circular. The Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 provides for basic right of an emptoyee who is terminated from his service without following due process of law cuid principles of naturat Justice. The dppointment of the petitioner was made when di^sute wi-tfi regard to removal of the respondent No. 3 was pending adjudication before Superior Authorities. It is well settled that any decision of appointment taken during adjudication is subject to finat decision of the Authority/Tribunat.

¶29

¶30

The appeat fited by the petitioner is stitl pending consideration before the Additional Collector. The petitioner has impugned the interim order passed by the Additional Collector. At fhis stage, it does not warrant any interference. No exception can be taken to the order passed by the Additional Collector, Narayanpur, DistrictBastar.

¶31

Thus, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to cost.

¶32

Sd/-
SatishK.Ag
Judge

¶33

SiAhflsh

Santu Ram Markam v. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santu Ram Markam v. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Satyabhama Kashyap and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Geeta Bai Singh and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr. K.K. Jain, Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Govind Narayan Paikra and Ors. Vs State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Indira Bai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kaushiliya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.