Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 2506 (ALL)

Ram Padarath v. State of U. P.

2004-12-13

ASHOK BHUSHAN

body2004
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and Sri Jagdish Prasad Tripathi appearing for the caveator. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.11.2004 passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of power under proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act seizing financial and administrative power of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer who conducted the preliminary enquiry is not district level officer. He further contended that the district level officer must be an officer equivalent to the status of the District Panchayat Raj Officer and cannot be subordinate to the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the District Magistrate while passing the order did not give any opportunity to the petitioner. It has been contended that the show cause notice dated 19.8.2004 was never served on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the caveator contended that the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer is the district level officer who is entrusted the duties pertaining to entire district. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a copy of the circular issued by the Director, Panchayat dated 11.11.1980 enumerating duties of the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer (Technical). Learned standing counsel has also supported the impugned order. 3. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 4. The first submission raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer is not the district level officer. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 5 of the U. P. District Panchayat Raj Officers Services Rules, 2000. Another submission raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the definition of the enquiry officer under Rule 2 (c) has to be read that any other district level officer has to be equivalent to the level of the District Panchayat Raj Officer and cannot be subordinate to the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The definition of the enquiry officer as contained in Rule 2 (c) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, is quoted below : “2. "Enquiry officer" means an officer not below the rank of District Panchayat Raj Officer, appointed as such, by the State Government." 5. The definition of the enquiry officer as contained in Rule 2 (c) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, is quoted below : “2. "Enquiry officer" means an officer not below the rank of District Panchayat Raj Officer, appointed as such, by the State Government." 5. The enquiry officer as per amended rules mentions the District Panchayat Raj Officer or any other district level officer. The emphasis is laid on the words “any other district level officer”. In accepting the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that any other district level officer should be equivalent to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, the words had to be added in the definition, which can never be intention of framers of the rules. It is settled rule of interpretation that while interpreting the settled provision no word has to be added in the provision nor any word used in the provision has to be treated as redundant. The object of the rule was to entrust the preliminary enquiry to any district level officer. The status or cadre of the district level officer has not been prescribed under the rule nor it is conditioned by any other provision. In above view of the matter the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that any other district level officer has to be of equivalent status to the District Panchayat Raj Officer cannot be accepted. 6. The second submission of the counsel for the petitioner that since the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer is subordinate to the District Panchayat Raj Officer he cannot be district level officer, cannot be accepted. The circular of the Director of Panchayat as shown by the counsel for the caveator contains various duties and functions of the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer (Technical). From perusal of the duties and functions it is clear that the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer is entrusted the duties and functions of the entire district with regard to Pancahyat Udyog and other matters. The officer who is entrusted the work of entire district and is not limited to any Block or Tahsil has to be accepted as district level officer. In view of above submission of counsel for the petitioner that the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer is not the district level officer cannot be accepted. 7. The officer who is entrusted the work of entire district and is not limited to any Block or Tahsil has to be accepted as district level officer. In view of above submission of counsel for the petitioner that the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer is not the district level officer cannot be accepted. 7. The last submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate was not served on the petitioner needs consideration. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition the petitioner has specifically averred that the show cause notice dated 19.8.2004, was not served on the petitioner. In the order of the District Magistrate also it has been mentioned that no reply has been submitted by the petitioner although sufficient time elapsed. In view of above submission of the petitioner it is open to the petitioner to move an application to the District Magistrate stating that the notice has never been served and it is for the District Magistrate to consider the said application and take decision in accordance with law. It is observed that in case the petitioner makes an application to the District Magistrate within two weeks from the date of production a certified copy of this order, the same may be considered and disposed of by the District Magistrate expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks in accordance with law. 8. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of.