Sof2 v. State of Ghhattjs<

Smt. SaSsun Singh. RESPONDENTS itateofCT W.P.No. 225 of 2006 PETLTiONER Shivcharan ©adewal. RESPOWDEPii'i of Chhattfeflarh and otters. W.P.No.232of2C9i PETiTIONER VI&hu RES PO?v'DENT3 Versus W.P.No. 233 of 2808 PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS Versus Shri Rajeev shrivastava, Anii counse! for ths respective petitionsrs. Shri AJay Dwiveai, Dy. Govt. Advocate tor tne Stete. Shri Aiok Bakshi, counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 5. IVIounfa and Shri !Vlalay si-invastava, '"^•WP'IS,.^'' ^ \v SNCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. (31/97'2S13) sls of sor suf axefCi^ Rai fiiShinivs Each of the petitioners was appointed as Shiksha Kanni Grade il by respondents No. 4. s S. On the basls of some compfaint the Dlrector, ^ s i^,-^1e-t Section Panchayat and Sodai Weifare, 85(1) ofthe Chhattlsgarii Panchayat Mhm'iyam, 1993"] and appointment issued bythe Chlef Cha»nDa. On the basls of sasd Dtrector, Panchayat, the ChteT Executlve order of terminatlon on 13»12/2006 withoirt affording any opportunity <rf Panchayat, Jan) S35 passed by rtwe Cfficer, Zi3, r tiated SS/12S ss ffor sh the sxecutioi the order T\ Indjsputabiy, the same impugned order was under chailenge b^ore (2) in W.P. No. 8453/2005 'Ku. NMM Keshafwani Vs. State of this Court ChhatSsgarh and Ottiers' and by order dated 23/04/2012 this Court quashed the order dated 13/12/2008. !n vlew of the above and the preserrt petitl tlttons are a'''iwrff"6 In th mg sifl of ft-te order oassed In the matter of Ku. NMhi Keshawans is the present bafch ofthe vwtt petltion. part of Prashant Kumar Mishra Sd/- Judge ;•' A/=^ \^ H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 6453 OF 2005 PETITIONER Ku. Nidhi Kesharwani Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : hlon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.K.Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. <af- ORDER (Passed on this 23rd day ofApril, 2012)

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-11 by the appointment order dated 17.06.2005 (Annexyre P-3). On the basis of certain complaint, by orderdated 06.12.2005 (Annexure P-2) the Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare.Raipur, while exercising his power under Section 85 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993"), suspended the execution of the order of appointment, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir-Champa. On the basis of said order dated 06.12.2005, the Chief Executive Officer, passed the impugned order of termination on

13.12.2005 (Annexure P-1) without affording any opportunity of hearing.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petjtioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, is without competence, as he has exceeded his jurisdiction in terminating the services of the petitioner without following due process of law, as prescribed under Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1Q97(for short'the Rules, 1997").

3. The Director, exercising his power under Section 85 (2) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, suspended the order of appointment issyed, may be with the purpose to hold enquiry. The Chief Executive Offieer, has no authority or 2 competence to terminate the services on the basis of suspension order passed by the Director. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents submits that there is no dispute that the Director exereised his power to suspend the execution order with the purpose to examine the order issued and thereafter, the orderoftermination from service can be passed. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the Chief Executive Officer has passed the order of termination on the basis of suspension order passed under Section 85 (1) by the Director. Section 85(1) ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993 reads as under: "85. Power to suspend execution of orders, etc.- (1) The State Government or the prescribed authority may by an order in writing and for reasons to be stated therein suspend the execution of any resolution passed, order issued, licence or permission granted or prohibit performance of any act by a Panchayat, if in his opinion, - (a) (b) (c) such resolution, order, licence, permission or act has not been legally passed, issued, granted or authorized; such resolution, order, licence, permission or act is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or is contrary to any law; or the execution of such resolution or order, or the continuance in force of such licence or permission or the doing of such act is likely - (i) loss, misapplication of any money or damage to any property vested in the Panchayat; (ii) (iii) to be prejudicial health, safety or convenience; to the public to cause injury or annoyance to the public or any class or body of persons; or (iv) to lead to a breach of peace." The service condition of Shiksha Karmis are governed by the Rules, 1997. It is well settled principles of law that principle of natural justice must be read into the provisions of law, which provides for termination at any time IS.VT by one month notice, as prescribed under Rule 10 ofthe Rules, 1997. In the case on hand, nothing has been done, even one month notice has also not been given. ; i The removal of a regular employee without affording an opportunity of hearing is unconstitutional, as under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, it is provided that no such person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed ofthe charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.In such cases, where the employer has powerto remove the employee from service, in that event also, the basic opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the employee. Thus, impugned order is illegal and cannot be sustained under the provisions of law. This Court in Roshan Prasad Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others observed as under: "13. [t is well settled principle oflawthat if any order visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated, if passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee(s). fSee; Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others , D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. & Others , Basudeo Tiwari v. S/do Kanhu University & Others, Canara Bank & Others. v. Debasis Das & Others , Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Otherss, Mohd. Sartaj & another v. Stata of U.P. & Others7, Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & others Vs. Stafe ofPunjab & otherss, Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ofhers , State qf Manipur & Others v. Y. fpken Singh & Jaswant Singh Pratap Stngh Jadeja v. Others , Rajkot Municipal Corporation & ariother , Nehru Vuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbul^Alam Lashkar and State of Punjab & Others v. •~<S.6nstable Avtar Singh (Dead) Through LRs.13).' ^'.' i.