Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kewala Devi vs State Of ... on 17 July, 2019
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 33013 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Kewala Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Panchayat Raj Deptt. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisha Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogendra Nath Yadav AND Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 32712 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kuldeep Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayat Raj &Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisha Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sharad Nandan Ojha,Yogendra Nath Yadav AND Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 33036 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Amrawati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Panchayat Raj Civil Sectt. Lko. & Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Gupta,Chetan Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. AND Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 33069 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt.Urmila Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Panchayat Raj Lko. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisha Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogendra Nath Yadav AND Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 33125 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Savitri Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Panchayat Raj & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisha Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogendra Nath Yadav AND Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 33693 of 2018 Petitioner :- Najma Bano Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Panchayati Raj Civil Sectt.&Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Bagesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Mishra,Yogendra Nath Yadav AND Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 32641 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Vimla Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt.Of Panchayat Raj & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisha Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogendra Nath Yadav Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
This is a bunch of petitions challenging similar orders passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioners who are gram pradhans of the respective gram panchayats. Not only the facts are similar, the nature of the orders as also the ground of challenge is also similar, therefore, all these petitions have been clubbed together.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that contrary to the law laid down by the full bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2011 (29) LCD 221 and the Single Judge judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2013(31) LCD 90, though the petitioners had submitted their reply to the show cause notice, the same has not been considered at all, even briefly, before passing the impugned order and therefore the cessation of administrative and financial powers of the Gram Pradhan is in the teeth of law declared by this Court as such the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside.
Learned Standing Counsel was categorically asked to show as to whether the petitioners had submitted their reply to the show cause notice or not, he admitted to the fact that the petitioners had submitted their reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the learned Standing Counsel Shri Diwakar Singh was asked to show from the impugned orders as to where the said reply of the petitioners to the show cause notice has been considered but he fairly accepted the fact that the impugned order was silent with regard to the reply of the petitioners.
In view of the undisputed factual position, with regard to the non-consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions according to which the order of cessation of financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan should disclose due application of mind and consideration of reply of the Gram Pradhan to the show cause notice even if not in a very detailed manner, the irresistible conclusion is that the impugned orders cannot be sustained, therefore, they are quashed. Furthermore, this Court finds that the basis of impugned order in all the petitions except Writ Petition No.33125 (MS) of 2018 is a preliminary inquiry conducted by a four member inquiry committee which comprised of officers who did not qualify to be appointed as inquiry officer under Rule 2 C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Removal of Gram Pradhan and Members (Inquiry) Rules 1997. Therefore, these proceedings stand vitiated from the date of constitution of such an Inquiry Committee.
In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate for the District Magistrate to re-appoint an Inquiry Officer or any Inquiry Committee as may be the requirement of the rules for holding preliminary inquiry afresh strictly in terms of the rule 2 (C) of the Rules, 1997 so far as the above mentioned petitions are concerned. It shall be open for the Inquiry Officer or the Committee to take the assistance of other officers who may have technical knowledge or knowledge of the relevant facts without inducting them as part of the inquiry committee or as inquiry officers. This provision can be made by the District Magistrate also. However, the inquiry would have to be conducted by the Inquiry Officer or the Committee as per rules, may be, with the assistance of such other officers. If any report is called for from such officers then the veracity of the same would be inquired by the Inquiry Officer or the Committee. On the receipt of the preliminary inquiry report the District Magistrate after issuing a show cause notice, shall consider the reply of the petitioner as per law and thereafter pass a fresh order under the proviso to Section 95 (1) G of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
In W.P. No.33125 (MS) of 2018 a three member committee was constituted comprising of the officers in terms of the rule 2 (C) of the Rules, 1997. The observations with regard to the illegal constitution of the preliminary committee would not apply in this case and in this case it shall be open for the District Magistrate to consider the reply already submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice in accordance with the pronouncement referred to hereinabove and pass fresh orders at the earliest.
In the meantime, considering the allegations against the petitioner and in order to balance the equities it is provided that the petitioners while exercising their administrative and financial power as Gram Pradhan, if their tenure has not expired as yet, shall ensure that any financial decision taken by them is not implemented without the approval of the District Panchayat Raj Officer so that the period interagnum is not taken advantage of to commit further financial irregularities.
With these observations all these petitions are disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.7.2019 mks