Allahabad High Court
Vikendra Nath Yadav And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 14 July, 2022
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9969 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vikendra Nath Yadav And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Tripathi,Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that eleven Gram Panchayat Adhikaris were allegedly involved in issuance of forged appointment letters to them, where an inquiry is pending in the Vigilance Establishment. Some of the Gram Panchayat Adhikaris had approached this Court and this Court had granted time to the respondents to file counter affidavit and as an interim measure provided that until further orders inquiry contemplated against the writ petitioners in terms of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance.
3. This Court finds that the petitioners are claiming parity on the ground that in similar matters this Court had entertained the writ petitions and passed an order staying the inquiry proceedings in pursuance of impugned orders dated 13.08.2020 and 03.09.2020 till further orders.
4. This Court is aware of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supeme Court in the case of Vishnu Traders vs. State of Haryana 1995 (1) SCC 461 where the Supreme Court has observed that in case of similarly situated persons filing writ petitions, such writ petitions remaining pending the parity/benefit of interim order granted to one writ petitioner be given to other writ petitioners as well.
5. However, this Court is not bound by the interim order in case it finally decides the petition.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that under the Government Order dated 25.06.2007, a notification was issued on 18.08.2007 where backlog vacancies of class-III and IV staff were to be filled in all Districts. The eligibility criteria was relaxed by way of amendment and the selection was to be made by way of interview and on merits only. Initially, a notification was issued on 21.06.2003, to carry out selection of class-III employees but the prescribed procedure was relaxed by the Notification dated 18.08.2007. In pursuance of office note sent by the District Panchayat Raj Officer to the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar that there were seven vacant seats in reserved category in the backlog that needed to be filled up. A requisition was called for from the Employment Office, Siddharth Nagar, the Employment Officer published an Advertisement for filling up a backlog vacancies of the reserved category of the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikaris inviting applications. The District Panchayat Raj Officer also got an advertisement published in various newspapers on 05.11.2011 and a Selection Committee was constituted of five members of which one was nominated by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar. A selection was held thereafter but in the meantime information was received that in addition to seven vacancies there were four other vacancies in backlog of Gram Panchayat Adhikaris i.e. a total number of 11 vacancies that needed to be filled up. Consequently selection was held and all relevant documents were sent to the Director, Panchayat Raj U.P. who made a query on 23.11.2007 with regard to the backlog vacancies in District Siddharth Nagar. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharth Nagar sent all necessary records to the Director, Panchayat Raj, and thereafter, the petitioners were declared selected on 10.12.2007 alongwith other successful candidates.
7. After rendering services on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari for a number of years complaints were received with regard to forged appointment letterss and fraudulent selection on the basis of which an inquiry was instituted by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in which the DPRO submitted his inquiry report in favour of the petitioners saying that there was no evidence of fraudulent selection found in his office. However, now a letter has been issued by the Under Secretary, Vigilance Department, Government of U.P. on 13.08.2020 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow informing him that an inquiry is pending with regard to the matter of fraudulent selection of Gram Panchayat Adhikaris in District Siddharth Nagar. Consequently, another letter has been issued on 03.09.2020 by the Panchayat Raj Anubhag-01 to the Director, Panchayat Raj informing him of such Open Vigilance Inquiry remaining pending and directing him to make necessary endorsement in the service records of the respective Gram Panchayat Adhikaris regarding pendency of Open Vigilance Inquiry against them, and to make available their entire service records to the Vigilance Establishment for inquiry.
8. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.08.2020 which is in the form of a letter/Inter-departmental Confidential Information sent from Vigilance Section-2 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, and also the letter, which is confidential information dated 03.09.2020, sent from the office of the Under Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Section-1 to a Director, Panchayati Raj. The petitioners are only challenging the aforesaid letter informing the concerned Officer that Open Vigilance Inquiry is pending against 11 Gram Panchayat Adhikaris and endorsement regarding the same be made in their service records on the ground that already a complaint was inquired into by the District Panchayati Raj Officer at the instance of the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar and an inquiry report had been submitted in favour of the petitioners and they cannot be subjected to repeated inquiry.
9. This Court finds from a perusal of the letter dated 13.08.2020 and the letter dated 03.09.2020 that they are only consequential letter informing the Government's decision to take recourse to Open Vigilance Inquiry with respect to alleged fraudulent appointed of 11 Gram Panchayat Adhikaris. The decision to initiate Open Vigilance Inquiry may have been taken by the Vigilance Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister, as per the U.P. Rules of Business. The original order has not been challenged. Such letter communicating the decision alone has been challenged.
10. In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of Maharashtra vs. Deokars Distillery 2003 (5) SCC 669 only consequential orders cannot be challenged as the original order must necessarily be challenged.
11. This writ petition is dismissed. It will be open for the petitioners to challenge the original order passed by the Vigilance Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister, if they are so advised.
Order Date :- 14.7.2022 Darpan Sharma