Ashwani Kumar Khande vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Heard.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 31-12-2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Bilaspur, order dated 27-1-2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mungeli, and the order dated 30-1-2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 5, i.e., the Gram Panchayat, Vicharpur, terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary.

The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Vicharpur. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his alleged misconduct. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice. The reply, on being found unsatisfactory, the respondent No. 5 vide its resolution dated 29-9-2001 resolved to remove the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary. Thereafter, vide order dated 30-1-2002 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Secretary/Panchayat Karmi. Against the said termination order, the petitioner preferred and appeal before the respondent No. 4, which was dismissed vide order dated 27-1-2003 (Annexure P-6). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent No. 3, which was also dismissed vide order dated 31-12-2003 (Annexure P-7). ''

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no charge-sheet has been issued and no enquiry has been conducted before the impugned order dated 31-1-2002 (Annexure P-1) was passed, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules, 1999'').

Per contra, Shri Shashank Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that admittedly, no enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was conducted, however, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice which was duly replied by the petitioner.

Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 pleads no instructions.

The question of law involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner, who was declared as Panchayat Secretary can be removed from the post without complying proper procedures as laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Admittedly, as averred by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was removed without supplying the charge-sheet and without conducting any enquiry.

It is well settled principle of law as enshrined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 that if the Gram Panchayat proposes to remove a Panchayat Karmi including Panchayat Secretary, the same may be done in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. 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) CGLJ 186, observed as under:

It is further admitted by all the parties that the procedure for holding an enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 for imposition of major penalty, that has not been followed. Hence, the termination is bad 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 the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India also. The order is in fact penal in nature having civil consequences and as such the elaborate provision of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was applicable in the case of the petitioner before terminating his services.

Further, in Beegan Ram v. State of CG. and Ors. 2006(2) M.P.H.T. 3 (CG) : 2006 LT (CG) 41, this Court observed as under:

With regard to exercise of power by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions have laid down the principles of law that the High Court has jurisdiction and power to interfere if the Court is satisfied that the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, clear ignorance and utter disregard of provisions of law and/or a grave injustice or gross violation of justice has occasioned thereby. In the present case, Revenue Authorities/ Tribunals have completely ignored the statutory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 and there is manifest error of the facts on the face of record, without requiring any investigation or enquiry. Admittedly, the alleged show-cause notice dated 27-2-2000 (Annexure R-3) could not have been served through the Gudi Kotwar on 24-2-2000, three days before the issue of show-cause notice. No notice as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was issued to the petitioner. Prior to submission of the enquiry report on 29-6-2000 (Annexure R-5), the Gram Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner from his service on 18-5-2000 and pursuant thereof, order of the removal was passed on 30-5-2000 (Annexure P-3).

Non-compliance of the statutory provisions and denial of principles of natural justice tantamounts to infraction of not only 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 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.

In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31-12-2003 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 3, order dated 27-1-2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 4, and the order dated 30-1-2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 5, are quashed. No order as to costs.