Allahabad High Court
Sumitra Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 8 July, 2020
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9478 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sumitra Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Niraj Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
On earlier occasions, learned Standing counsel had been directed to obtain instructions, which have been duly received.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Pradhan. On a complaint against her, her financial and administrative powers was seized. The petitioner submitted her reply and thereafter a final enquiry was held against her.
The District Development Officer furnished his enquiry report exonerating the petitioner. It was specifically found that there was no allegation of financial and administrative against her and that the allegation that allotment had been made wrongly and illegally by the petitioner in the Lohiya Yojana was not correct and that these allotments had been made during the tenure of the earlier Pradhan.
The District Magistrate, vide order dated 21.03.2020, accepted the enquiry report and restored the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.
It appears that thereafter, some complaint was made by the same complainant that enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner. Thereupon, the District Magistrate has ordered a fresh enquiry and again suspended the Pradhan has seized the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner vide order dated 18.05.2020.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that once enquiry on certain charges has resulted in exoneration of the petitioner, the District Magistrate, could not have ordered a fresh enquiry on the same allegations and that in doing so. He has, in fact, reviewed his earlier order, which power he does not possess.
It is also reiterated that the enquiry ordered by the impugned order is on the very same charges, which have already been investigated and the petitioner exonerated.
It was on this aspect that the instructions had been called for by this Court. The instructions that have been received admit that a fresh enquiry has been ordered. However, no provision has been mentioned either in the instructions nor could any such provision be pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, wherein the impugned order could have been passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia in the facts and circumstances, narrated above.
Under the circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that the impugned order, which directs a fresh enquiry on charges, which had already been enquired into and found to be without substance, could not have been ordered especially after the earlier enquiry report had been accepted and the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner had already been restored by the District Magistrate, himself. The impugned order therefore, amounts to review which power the District Magistrate does not possess. Neither could any power of review could be demonstrated by learned Standing Counsel.
The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained and must necessarily be set aside.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 18.05.2020.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 8.7.2020 RKM