Aghan Singh Jangade vs State of C.G. and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The present petition, filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P/7), passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi/Secretary of Gram Panchayat Rampur, Block Kurud, District Dhamtari by order dated 30.10.1995 (Annexure P/1). On the basis of some complaints made against the Petitioner, by resolution dated 22.6.2000 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Gram Panchayat, the Petitioner was removed from the post of Secretary (Panchayat Karmi). The allegations against the Petitioner are that he did not complete transaction register and committed irregularities in distribution of patta and dereliction in duty of Panchayat.

Learned Counsel submits that the impugned resolution, passed by the Gram Panchayat was illegal and bad on the ground that the Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and the order of termination was passed in contravention of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short ''the Rules, 1999'').

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtari, which was dismissed by order dated 3.3.2005 (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Dhamtari, which was dismissed by order dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure P/6). By the impugned order dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P/7), the revision filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 provides for procedure before terminating service of a member of Panchayat. In the instant case, the said provisions were not followed, no definite charges were framed and the Petitioner was not served with the articles of charges before holding an enquiry, leading to termination of the Petitioner from his services and in fact neither the show cause notice was issued nor the enquiry was held. It was further submitted that the termination was passed on the basis of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat in its meeting dated 22.6.2000. The same could not have been passed without following the provisions of law, prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules 1999. In support of his submissions learned Counsel cited a decision of this Court in the matter of Dhahiram Kosaria v. State of C.G. and Ors. 2006(2) CGLJ 186, which was relied on in Anjordas v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. 2008 (3) MPJR-CG 110.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 6/ State fairly admits that the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 were not complied with before passing the impugned order.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 opposes the petition on the ground that having regard to the illegalities and irregularities committed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner does not deserve any sympathy.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and document appended thereto, it is evident that the impugned termination order was passed without following the proper procedure of law, as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. The procedure for holding an enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 for imposition of major penalty. Hence, the termination is had and vitiated on the ground of non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of the principles of natural justice. It amounts to infraction of not only the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but also the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The order is in fact penal in nature, having civil consequences and as such compliance of the elaborate provisions, as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 is mandatory in the present case. (See the case of Dhaluram Kosaria and Anjordas (supra)).

In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P/7), order dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure P/6), order dated 3.3.2005 (Annexure P/5) and the resolution dated 22.6.2000 (Annexure P/2) are set aside and quashed.

On the question of back wages, no foundation has been laid to establish the fact that whether the Petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere or not during this period. Even otherwise, keeping in view 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, 30% back wages would be sufficient in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs.

However, the Respondents/authorities, on their request are granted liberty to take fresh steps in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, if so advised.