Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2807 (ALL)

MUKESH KUMAR (PRADHAN) v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-11-18

TARUN AGARWALA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri C.K.Parekh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Chandra Tiwari, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. Inspite of a stop order being passed, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State. 3. The petitioner is the elected Gram Pradhan. Respondent No. 7 filed a complaint and, on that basis, a preliminary enquiry was held under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans And Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as the Rules). In this preliminary enquiry, a prima facie case of financial irregularity was made out and on that basis, the District Magistrate issued an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner and further directed a final enquiry to be held in accordance with provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules. 4. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a final report holding that the allegations found in the preliminary enquiry stood proved. On the basis of this enquiry report, the District Magistrate issued a show-cause notice and upon receipt of the reply removed the petitioner exercising the powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of removal from the post of Pradhan, has filed the present writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order as well as the enquiry report, which has been filed by respondent No. 7 in his counter-affidavit, the Court finds that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. An elaborate procedure has been prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules. Rule 6(2) of the Rules clearly indicates that the Enquiry Officer shall draw the substance of the imputations into definite and distinct articles of charge and that a statement of the imputations in support of each article of charge, shall also be drawn up, which shall contain statement of all relevant facts and the list of documents and list of witnesses and which are all required to be indicated and supplied to the Pradhan. The procedure thereafter as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules is required to be followed. 7. The procedure thereafter as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules is required to be followed. 7. Without going into the details, the Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has submitted a five line report and held that the imputations mentioned in the preliminary enquiry was inquired and the charges have been found to be true. The Court is of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer has not even read the procedure, which he is required to follow under Rule 6 of the Rules. A very shoddy and careless enquiry has been done by the Enquiry Officer and, on that basis, a Pradhan, who has been given a constitutional status has been removed. No charge was framed by the Enquiry Officer nor any statement of imputation was made nor list of documents or list of witnesses were indicated. Since no charge has been framed, the question of such charge been proved does not arise. 8. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 9. It would be open to the District Magistrate to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer under Rule 6 of the Rules with a specific direction to proceed in terms of the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules. 10. Since the State respondents has not filed any counter-affidavit, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is imposed upon the State respondents, to be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from today, failing which it would be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in this writ petition.