The High Court at Bilaspur quashed the appellate order admitting the petitioner's termination from the post of Panchayat Karmi because it was passed without conducting a formal inquiry as mandated by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service Rules, 1999.
The impugned order dated 25.01.2003 passed by the S.D.O is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
•-——-wi
c^^ 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION N0. S9.G _ J 2003
Harishchandra Sahu, son of Shri /Deendayal Sahu, aged about 26 years, resident of Bhanpuri, Distt. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
PETITIONER Harishchandra Sahu, son of Shri
/Deendayal Sahu, aged about 26
years, resident of Bhanpuri, Distt.
Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through :
Collector,Rajnandgaon (CG).
lw is'"^- 2) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),
^^:^ Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).
^-^••'..•''
.^%^"'" The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad
^^s^ Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, Distt.
'^'"*y .-^'
Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).
(;?-'
Gram Panchayat Bhanpuri,
.,y:>.''.--f'"" ^SSS-^":..- fr ! •ST Through : its Sarpanch, Jashwant
.^••':" ^•^-.^ '^ ^-
.'-<'<>-
e. ^ Kuraar Sahu, Tah. Rajnandgaon,
%.
Ks^
Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG)
1} -JF^^JZyfl/
^'yc^^'yy'j
V^ut-l?^'%.. '^-''a^'''1"""''-/^ ~<A' 5) Gram Sabha Bhanpuri, through :
the Chairman Cum-Sarpanch, Grain
Panchayat Bhanpuri, Rajngfldgaon
(CG) //
i-Si»^ .-.••?M;
&
.StfRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
'7"r]F'^ ;::xl~c%.
I'-^'-''^ ^'
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
S.B.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Agarwal
W.P. No.580of2003
PETITIONER Harishchandra Sahu
Versus
RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh and others
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTUTION OF INDIA
Aopearance :
Mr. Ashok Vaishnav, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 8s 2.
Mr. Anand Shukla, Counsel for respondents 3 to 5.
ORAL ORDER
(03.12.2013)
Heard.
(2) The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitudon oflndia questioning the legality and propriety of the appellate order dated 25.01.2003 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in Appeal No.54-B/121 Year 2002-2003 affirming the petitioner's termination order dated 18.12.2002 (Annexure P/7), whereby, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat has removed the pedtioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi.
(3) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Panchayat Karmi (Panchayat Secretary) of the Gram
^Vh -^',!?' ...''••/
^
Panchayat, Bhanupuri, Tehsil and District Rajnandgaon on 25.08.1996. He was removed from the said post vide order dated 18.12.2002 (Annexure P/7) by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat. The appeal preferred there-against by the petitioner before the S.D.0 was dismissed, as not maintainable, vide impugned order- Annexure P/10.
(5) Mr. Ashok Vaishnav, learned counsel for the jsetitioner, submits that the petitioner was removed from service without following the prpcedure and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner.
^
(6) It is an admitted position that the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) without following the procedure as envisaged in the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as"the Rules, 1999'). Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 says that:
No order, imposing on a member of th3 Panchayat Service, any of the pencdties specified in clause (iv) to (via) of rule 5 shall be passed except after a formal inquiry is held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter proved.
i Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 envisages that :
"When an order for formal inquiry has been made, the disciplinary authority shall frame Definite charges on
IsNi' :'[• [
s
the basis of allegations and shall communicate such charges, along with the statement of the allegations, to the member of the Panchayat Service and also require him. to submit, within such time qs may be specified a written statement of defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person."
(7) Sub-Rules (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of Rule 7 further prescribe the procedure to be followed before imposing any raajor penalty specified in clause (iv) to (via).
(8) It is also an admitted position that no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner before removing him from the post of Panchayat Karmi as per Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order dated 25.01.2003 passed by the S.D.0 is Uable to be quashed.
(7) In the above circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. However, it is made clear that the respondents are not precluded from conducting fresh enquiry on the alleged misconduct of the petitioner.
(8) With the above observation and direction, the petitionstands finally disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/N.K.Agrawal Judge
Shvna
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the termination of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi was legal without following the procedure of formal inquiry.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Harishchandra Sahu
State of Chhattisgarh
Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Rajnandgaon
The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon
Gram Panchayat Bhanpuri
Gram Sabha Bhanpuri
N.K. Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
