LE ECTi v. State of Chhattisgarh, Tbrough-Du-ector Panchayat

Shri Ashok VaiAnav, Adyocate for the Petitioner. Shri Satidi Supta, Soyemment Advocate for the re^»ondents No. 1 .<-'' A and 3. Shri Sflindeep Dubey, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 4. OR & E R (Passed on/3" September, 2006) The petitioner wus oppointed as Panchayat Karmi/Secretary in •the 6rav Panchoyat, Ka+hotia, Janpad Piinchayat - Lormt, bistrict- Bilaqsur. He has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Indig, impugning the order 23-4.2005 (Annexure P/l), whereby tiie services of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi was terminated in accordance with the resotution passed in the meeting of the firarn Panchayat dated 12.4.2005, which wus syproved by the &ro.m Sabha in its meetings dated 14 , 16 19th Apri!, 2005 ; -the order dated 2.5.2005 (Annexure P/2), whereby the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Kathotia inade under Section 69(1) of Chhati-isgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Grvm Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was terminated, oind the order dated 4.10.2005 (Annexure P/4), 2 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the 5arpanch, removing the petitsoner from the post of Panchoyat Karmi and consequently the order, removing from the post of the Secretary of the ©mmPonchoyat fro"! the petitioner, was upheld by the appeliate au+hority/respondent No.l.

2. The facts in nutshell are that +he petitioner was appointed ctS Panchayat Karmi and thereafter Secretary. On the ground of ^. ^-•.» several srregularities aNeged to have been connmitted by the petitioner, he was removed from the post of Ponchoyat Karmi vide order dated 23.4.2005 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No.4 on the basis of the resolution pcissed in •the meeting dated

12.4.2005, opproved by the 6ram Sabha in its meetings dated

14.4.2005, 16.4.2005 and 19.4.2005. Consequently, the petitioner was removed from the post of Sscretary yide order dated

2.5.2005 (Annexure P/2) pnssed by the respondent No.3.

3. In revssior!, -the respondent No.l vide order dcted 4.10.2005 uphelel the order pas»d by the Sarpaich, removin9 the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, thereaf1%r, the remoyal of the petitioner as Secretary by order dated 2.5.2005 and dismissed the revision accordin9ly.

4. The petitioner has fited this petit'on on the grounds that before order of remoyal was possed by the respondent No.4 on 23.4.2005, no show cause notice was served on -Hie petitioner and also a deparhnental enquiry as envisaged in Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Seryice (Discipline ond Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for riiort- 'the Rules, 1999') was not conducted. Hence the removal of the peti+ioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi on the bosis of the resolution alone passed by the Gram Panchoyat and •thereafter opproved by the 6ram Sabha is yitiated and consequently, the order chted 2.5.2005 removing the petitioner from the post of Secretoiry was also vitiated as the removat of the petitioner as ^.1 Panchayat Karmi it^lf wcis bad and contrary to proyisions of law by not following the procedure as laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules,

5. Shri Ashok &as V/aishnav, tesmed couna! appearing for the peti+ioner submitted as sta+ed aboye. It was further contended by him that the alleged allegations cgainst the petitioner cannot be held as proved wi+hout conducting even format enquiry under the provssions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 before imposin9 major pennlty of ren'toval of the petttioner from the services as Panchayat Karmi of the ©ramPanchayat as prescribed in Rute S of +he Rules, 1999.

6. On the contrary, Shri Sandeep bubey, teamed counsel oppewmg for the respondents No. 2 iind 4 submitted that a proper diow CUUSK notice was issued cind served on the petitioner on 4.4.2005. The petitioner re-fosed to tsske the notice. Accordingly, the snid notice was pasted at his residence 'm presence of three panchas (Annexurs R-4/2). It was further submitted that the said show cnuse notice contained definite chsrges on the basis of allegations along with statement of allegations. Thus, the petitioner connot contend that the show ctMse notice was not served upon him. The petitioner himself refused to accept the show cause notice ond thereafter d'd not participate in the proposed enquiry.

7. The Sarpanch, after- haying gone throu9h the materials available, -> .<t" i. came to the conclusion thct the petitioner was guilty of the charges of irregu!arities, and accordingly, the ©ram Panchayat resolved to reniove the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Kar'mi. 8- Having heard learned counsel for l+'e part'ies cnd hwing perused the pleadings and documents appended to the petition as also to the return, it is found that the petitioner WH!S served with a charge rfieet containing cs mnny as 9 charges of irregularities committed by hm. Some of the charges are that sham ration cards were isased to fiye persons aid fiye persons were not paid social security pension. It was also found that notice was refused by the petitioner on 4.4.2005, thereafter, it wus pasted on the wall of the residence of the petitioner in priesence of the pcnchas namely Churavan, Itwwri 0'nd Sonsingh. It was further found that all the charges were discussed at length and on the basis of records ayailable the sajd charges were found proved. Accordingly, Gra.m Pcanchayat i" its metin9 dated 12.4.2005 resolyed to remove +he pe+itioner from the post of Panchoyat Karmi which was —•. thereafter approyed by the general body of the ©rcmSabha in its meetings dated 14.4.2005, 16.4.2005 and 19.4.2005. Subsequent order dated 2.5.2005 was aiso passed on the basis of the order dated 23.4.2005 as the pe+it'oner could not continue to work as Secretary after remoyal of his seryices as Panchayat l&irmi.

9. In view of the cbove s+ated facts, the contention of leamed counset for the petitioner is misplncecl cnd not sustainable in low. Proper procedure, ns prescribed under rule 7 of +he Rules, 1999 was followed in the present case.

10. The Hon'bte Supreme Court in the cnse of Syndicate Bank Vs. Seneral Secretary, Syndicate- Bank Staff Assoclart-ion eind another {(2000) 5 SCC 65} observed in paro 17, as under;- "17. It is no point justice without understanding +heir scope or lciying stress on the principles of natural real meaning. There are two essential elements of natural justice which are; (a) no man shatt be judge in his own cause; omd (b) no man shall be condemned, either civilly or criminally, without being afforded an opportunity of being heard in answer to the char9e made against him. In course of time by various judicial pronouncements these two pr'nciples of natural Justice haye been expanded, e.g., a party must have due notice when the tribunal wil! proceed; the tribunal shouid not nct on irrelevant evidence or shut out relevant eyidence; if the tribunal consists of several inembers they al! must sit together at all times; the tribunal shoutd act independently and should not be bia^d ogainst any par+y; its action diouid be bosed on good faith oind order (sic) a"d dioutd act in a just, fair and reasonabte manner. Thess !n fact are the extensions or refinements of the (nain principles of "aturat justice s+ated above."

11. The Hon'ble Suoreme Court- in the ccse of Indra Bhanu ©aurVs. Cominittee, Manageinent of M.M. Degrse Colleg® ami others {(2004) 1 SCC 281} hns obser'/ed m para 7, as under:- "7........... An'p'e opportunit/ was granted to the appellant to place his case. Hs did not choose to do so. It is only a person who is ready and willing to cvail of the opportunity giyen, who con inake a grievance about denial of any opportunity cmd not a person like the appellant who despite repeated opporhjnities given and indulgence shown exhibited defiance and totat indifference to extending cooperntion............" 12- In onother case of &. Vinod Shivappa Vs. Ngnda Bslliappa { JT 2006 CEI) 5C 187 }, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the questio" of service of notice under Ciause (c) of the proviso to Section 130-.4 of the Negotiable Instruments -4ct, 1881 held in pcragraphs 14 a"d 21, as under;- "14. If a notice is issued ond seryed upon the drawer of the cheque, no con+roversy o.rises- S'milarly if the notice is refused by the addressee, it may be preaimed to have been fien'ed. This is nlso not disputed......." "21......... It is no doubt true that the receipt of the notice has to be proved, but as he!d by this Court consistently, refusat of notice amounts to service of notice............"

13. The reliance of leamed counset for the petitioner on provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 ond thereafter on various orders poissed by this Court- i" +he cases of Prakash Chand Soni Vs. Sta-te of Chhan'sgarh {2005 LT (C&) 151} and Kunjm Singh Vs. State of s. -.f^' r a^^ M.P. and others {2003 (3) M.P.H.T. 370}, are of no cissistance to +he pet't'oner, as this is not s case where the show cau^ notice, con-taining charges oind allegations was not issued and the employer/Panchay<it proceeded to remove the service of enaptoyee/Panchayat Khrmi(Secretary) on the basis of resolution atone passed by the Srann Pcnchayat.

14. In the present pe+ition the petitioner woss served wi+h diow cause notice containing charges ond sta+ements of atlega+ions. The petitioner refused to accept the notice and thus to partscipate in the proposed enquiry.

15. As a result a"d for the aforesnid peasons, this petition is dismissed.No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agny.otri ^'udge <~:'t. " ' Thakur