Channu Lal Patel vs State of Chhattisgarh and others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26-10-2006 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Dy. Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, whereby, the appointment of the petitioner Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Paras bod was cancelled and the order dated 25-3-2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon, whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26-10-2006, was dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Dy. Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Rajnandgaon. The petitioner was initially appointed as Panchayat Karmi, thereafter by order dated 18-6-1997 (Annexure P-2), he was appointed as Panchayat Secretary under provisions of Section 69(1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam"). According to learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary was cancelled by order dated 26-10-2006 (Annexure P-6) without holding a proper enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules, 1999").

Shri Verma, relies on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rooplal Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2006 (4) M.P.H.T. 99 (CG), wherein, it was held that even withdrawal of the order of appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary tantamounts to reduction in rank and since reduction in rank is a major penalty in terms of Rule 5 (b) (iv) of the Rules, it cannot be imposed on a member of the Panchayat Service without conducting a regular departmental enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999.

Despite service of notice, none appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the respondent No. 4/Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Paras bod.

Shri Shridhar, learned Counsel appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that though sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded, however, as required under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, issue of a charge-sheet and holding a proper regular enquiry before imposition of major penalty, i.e., reduction in rank, was not done in the instant case. Shri Shridhar, further submits that the purpose of affording the opportunity of hearing has already been achieved by affording full opportunity of hearing. Thus, not holding an enquiry in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 may not prejudice the case of the petitioner.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is apparent that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 6-10-2005 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, a reply to the show-cause notice was also filed by the petitioner on 17-10-2005 (Annexure P-4). Being dissatisfied with the reply, the impugned order dated 26-10-2006 was passed by the Dy. Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare.

Shri Shridhar, submits that preliminary enquiry was also conducted, but not in accordance with the requirement of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. There against, a revision was preferred before the Collector, Rajnandgaon. The Collector, thereafter, by order dated 25-3-2008 (Annexure P-1), which is sought to be impugned in this petition, affirmed the order dated 26-10-2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Dy. Director and dismissed the appeal.

The Division Bench of this Court in Rooplal Nayak (supra), had clearly held that even reduction in rank by cancellation or withdrawal of the order of appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary u/s 69(1) of the Adhiniyam tantamounts to reduction in rank, which is a major penalty. Thus, before imposition of major penalty, a regular departmental enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 must be conducted.

This Court, in Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G. and Others, , had considered at length the requirement of conduct of departmental enquiry under provisions of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999. For want of proper enquiry, the order of removal from the post of Panchayat Karmi - Secretary was quashed. The law, as settled in the above stated cases, has not been applied to the facts of the instant case. There is no gainsaying that no regular enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was conducted in the instant case. Thus, the impugned order dated 26-10-2006 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Dy. Director and order dated 25-3-2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Collector, in revision are unsustainable. Accordingly, the same are quashed.

In respect of grant of back wages, there is no pleading that the petitioner had suffered any loss on account of cancellation of appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary, as the petitioner has been continuing as Panchayat Karmi throughout. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages.

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, on the request of learned Counsel appearing for the State, liberty is reserved to the State to take appropriate steps, if so advised, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.