The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a formal inquiry before dispensing with the service of a Panchayat servant, as mandated by Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999.

ORDER :

1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the removal of the petitioner from the post of Gram Panchayat Secretary on the basis of resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, Munund, under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam whereby it is alleged that the service of the petitioner who was working as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Munund, has been terminated without any due inquiry and without following the procedure established by law.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by resolution dated 14.08.2002 (Annexure P-4) the petitioner has been removed from the post of Secretary on the basis of resolution of the Gram Panchayat. He would submit that once the petitioner was appointed as a Secretary Gram Panchayat, his services would be governed by Chhhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 wherein rule 5(b) prescribed the major penalties of removal from service not disqualifying for future employment and the procedure has been prescribed under Rule 7 which puts an embargo that before dispensing with the service by way of termination/dismissal of service procedure to follow the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 would be mandatory to hold a departmental enquiry. He would submit that the petitioner though against such dismissal filed appeal, but the SDO by order dated Annexure P-3 dated 25.04.2003 has dismissed the appeal on the ground that against the resolution of the Gram Panchayat u/s 91 of the Act of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, appeal or revision would not lie. He submits that the very inception of termination of service was bad in law and since it was with a stigma of allegation, without departmental enquiry the petitioner could not have been removed. He refers to a decision of this Court reported in 2006(2)CGLJ 186 (Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State of C.G., decided by this court and submits that in the similar situation without departmental enquiry, the dismissal of service was effected where the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages to certain extent. Therefore, the present petitioner may be reinstated to the post as he would otherwise due to retire in December of this year i.e., 2024.

3) Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate, appears for respondent no.3 would submit that there is no fact on record that the petitioner was ever appointed as Secretary Gram Panchayat, Munund and they could not lay hands as the records were not available. He submits that the records of the proceedings are not available in the Gram Panchayat and the records were available with one Shiv Kumar Sahu who was the earlier secretary of Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat Munund, respondent no. 4 was again directed to be served and the record would show that the service was effected on the Sarpanch named one Dhan Bai has received the notice but no representation is made. The certified copy of resolution Annexure-4 issued by the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Munund is placed. A perusal of it would show that it is written that a meeting was convened on 14.08.2002 wherein certain allegations were attributed to the petitioner who was working as a Secretary that he did not contribute or co-operate in payment of Nirashrit pension and celebration of 15th of August and despite notice, he did not appear. It further purports that on a complaint when the records were inspected, certain manipulations were also found. Therefore, his services as secretary was dispensed with, meaning thereby he was dispensed with service.

4) The submission of respondent no.3 who is before the Court that the petitioner has not filed any document of his appointment as the appointments are statutory under section 69 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and he was required to place on record. I am unable to appreciate the fact for the reason that the Gram Panchayat who dispensed the service of the petitioner acknowledged the capacity of petitioner as a Secretary in its resolution. The Gram Panchayat is not before the Court. If at the