Allowed

Chandrabhan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC19 Mar 2018WP/1829/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, allowed a writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary. The Court quashed the termination order as it was passed without issuing a show cause notice or granting an opportunity of hearing, contravening natural justice principles. Back wages liability was directed to be decided within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

The order of termination is quashed. The question of back wages is directed to be decided by the Deputy Director within 45 days after hearing the parties.

Chandrabhan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No. 1829 of 2002

¶5

Chandrabhan Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o Ramsingh, R/o Village Bijbhatha, P.O. Kosmatara, Tahsil Pandari, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur, through its Registrar, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

¶10

Deputy Director, Panchayat Social Service, Bilaspur, C.G.

¶11

Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, through the Chief Executive Officer, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

Gram Panchayat Khosmarara, through its Sarpanch, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

Uderam S/o Hariram Kashyap, Gram Panchayat Kosmatara, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner	: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Ashish Surana, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondents No. 3,4,5,6	: None present, though served.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

19/03/2018

¶19

The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary by order dated 26.01.1995 (Anneuxre – P/1) in exercise of power conferred under Section 69(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The petitioner proceeded on medical leave from 16.03.1996 and submitted his joining on 06.04.1996 and he was served with the order of termination undated and was terminated

¶20

¶21

with effect from 06.04.1996, against which this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of termination is unsustainable and bad in law as no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner in terms of the instructions for Panchayat Karmi dated 12.09.1995.

¶23

On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and would support the impugned order.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the impugned order and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶25

The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary in accordance with the instructions dated 12.09.1995. The relevant Para–7 of the instructions provides as under :-

¶26

“7- vkuq'kkfld dk;Zokgh %

¶27

iapk;r dehZ ij iz'kkldh; fu;a=.k iq.kZr% lacaf/kr xzke iapk;r dk gksxkA drZO; dh mis{kk] drZO; dk vikyu] vfu;ferrk vkfn dh n'kk esa muds fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh djus ds vf/kdkj xzke iapk;r esa fufgr gksaxsA iapk;r dehZ dks dkj.k crkvks lqpuk fn;s tkus rFkk ;fn dksbZ mŸkj muds }kjk fn;k gks rks ml ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr xzke iapk;r dh lkekU; lHkk mls in ls gVk ldsxhA”

¶28

The aforesaid instructions clearly states that the action for removal of the Secretary of the village Panchayat needs to be in consonance with the instructions of the Panchayat Karmi Scheme, 1995 but the petitioner has been removed dehors the Panchayat Karmi Scheme, 1995 as no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner.

¶29

The fact remains that neither notice has been served nor opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner and as such, the order of termination (Annexure – P/9) is in teeth of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, it is quashed.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. The

¶31

¶32

question of back wages will be considered and decided by respondent No. 3– Deputy Director, Panchayat, Social Service, Bilaspur after hearing the petitioner and concerned Janpad Panchayat expeditiously within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No cost(s).

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶35

Priyanka

Chandrabhan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siya Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Prasad Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kartik Ram Kurre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Naushad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/S Purwasha Vanijiya Privet Ltd. Vs the Collector Mahasamund

Shri Harnarayan Rathore Vs the Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Secl)