Anjordas vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

The present petition filed under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 2.9.2006 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Respondent No. 4 - Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jamri, whereby the Petitioner has been terminated from the post of (Secretary) Panchayat Karmi of the Gram Panchayat Jamri, Block-Dongargarh, District-Rajnandgaon.

The indisputable facts are that the Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) by order dated 16.1.1999 (Annexure P/1). The Collector, Rajnandgaon sent a communication dated 28.10.2005 (Annexure P/4) to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh, stating that in the light of the report dated 13.10.2005 it is established that the Petitioner had collected money for construction of dry-latrine from 21 families living below the poverty line and misappropriated the same. It was directed to lodge F.I.R. against the Petitioner and take necessary action for his removal from the post of Secretary.

Thereafter, the Petitioner received a show cause notice dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure P/2), issued by the Respondent No. 2, stating therein that in a preliminary enquiry the allegations of financial irregularities and misbehaviour with the panchayat office bearers and villagers have been found proved. The Petitioner was called upon to submit his reply within a period of three days as to why the appointment of the Petitioner u/s 69(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, on the post of Secretary be not cancelled.

In compliance of the above show cause notice dated 24.2.2006 the Petitioner submitted his reply dated 7.3.2006 (Annexure P/3), denying the allegations levelled against him.

In response to the memo dated 14.5.2006 issued by the Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh and memo dated 29.4.2006 issued by the Social Welfare Department, Rajnandgaon, a meeting of the village Panchayat as well as Gram Sabha was convened on 1.6.2006 and the resolution (Annexure P/5) was passed to remove the Petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi and Panchayat Secretary. Consequent thereupon, the impugned order dated 2.9.2006 (Annexure P/6) was passed by the Respondent No. 4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Jamri, removing the Petitioner from the post of (Secretary) Panchayat Karmi.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was not informed about any kind of complaints received against him, before issuing the show cause notice dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure P/2) and the alleged enquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer. Likewise, the Petitioner was not aware about the allegation of collection and misappropriation of money from 21 families and the alleged enquiry report dated 13.10.2005, as is mentioned in the communication dated 28.10.2005 (Annexure P/4). The serious allegations were found proved in an enquiry, in absence of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing to put forward his case before report was submitted and thereafter before action was taken on the report. Granting three days time, when it was decided to remove the Petitioner from the post of Secretary, was not sufficient and reasonable to put forward his case on each and every allegation, which had already been found proved before notice dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure P/2) was issued by the Respondent No. 2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would further submit that Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short the Rules, 1999'') provides for procedure before terminating services of a member of the 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.

Learned Counsel would further submit that the termination order was passed on the basis of the allegation that the Petitioner had committed irregularities and misbehavior in performance of his duties. The order is stigmatic and removal from service comes within the purview of major penalty, the same could not have been passed without following the procedure as laid down in the provisions of law, as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules 1999.

Despite service of notice, the Respondent No. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh and the Respondent No. 4 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jamri, Block Dongargarh, have chosen not to appear in the proceeding.

Shri U. N. S. Deo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 would categorically submit that on perusal of the papers it is evident that the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 have not been followed. The Petitioner was appointed on 16.1.1999 and without following the due process of law, the Petitioner has been removed on 2.9.2006 on the basis of the resolution passed by the concerned Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha, which is not sustainable in law.

Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat, before passing the impugned termination order has not complied with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. This Court in Dhaluram Kosaria v. State of C.G. and Ors., 2006 (2) CGLG 186, Beegan Ram v. State of C.G. and Ors., 2006 LT (CG) 41 and Prakash Chand Soni v. State of C.G. and Ors., 2005 LT (CG) 151 has hold that the non compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justice tantamounts to infraction of not any the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 but the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India also. The order of removal being penal in nature, visiting with civil (evil) consequences, cannot be passed without holding the enquiry in accordance with the elaborate provisions, as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999.

It is thus clear that the Respondents have not followed the statutory provisions of law before passing the impugned order.

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 noncompliance of the statutory provisions before terminating the services of the Petitioner, 30% back wages would be sufficient in the interest of justice.

In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.9.2006 (Annexure P/6) is quashed. No costs.