Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1870 (ALL)

Tilak Singh v. State of U. P.

2018-08-27

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. 1. The present writ petition was initially filed challenging the order dated 5.5.2018 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Aligarh whereby a three member committee was appointed to exercise the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner who is the elected Gram Pradhan of the Village. 2. The order dated 5.5.2018 was passed as a consequence of the order dated 24.3.2018 previously passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh ceasing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner. The said order was not challenged in the writ petition and therefore, an amendment application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.3.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were ceased by the District Magistrate in exercise of his power under Section 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, Act, 1947) I-proviso read with Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1997'). 3. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 24.3.2018 was passed by the District Magistrate relying on an inquiry report submitted by the Project Director who was appointed as an Inquiry Officer by the order of the District Magistrate and the said order was passed without verifying whether the complaint submitted by the complainant against the petitioner were in accordance with Rule 3 of 1997 Rules. It was argued that Rule 2(c) of Rules, 1997 defines 'Enquiry Officer' to mean the 'District Panchayat Raj Officer' and thus only the 'District Panchayat Raj Officer' can hold a preliminary inquiry under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997. It has been further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued to him after the submission of the report of the preliminary inquiry, has also not been considered by the District Magistrate. 4. I have perused the impugned order dated 24.3.2018 as well as the other documents annexed with the writ petition and the amendment application. 5. 4. I have perused the impugned order dated 24.3.2018 as well as the other documents annexed with the writ petition and the amendment application. 5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 24.3.2018 passed by the District Magistrate was passed without verifying whether the complaint filed against the petitioner was according to Rule 3 of the Rule 1997 is not available to the petitioner in as much as in Vivekanand Yadav versus State (2010) 10 ADJ 1 (F.B), the Full Bench of this Court has held that the Gram Pradhan has no locus standi to challenge any irregularity in the complaint filed against him under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1997. 6. The second argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the preliminary inquiry was contrary to the rules as it was not conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer but by the District Project Director. In support of his argument, the counsel for the petitioner relied upon observations made by this Court in paragraph -6 of Sandhya Gupta versus District Magistrate, AIR 1999 Allahabad 273. The said observation relate to the Rules as they existed in 1999 which was subsequently amended by notification dated 5.10.2001. Through the aforesaid notification, Rule 2(c) was amended and 'Enquiry Officer' was defined as the District Panchayat Raj Officer or any other district level Officer to be nominated by the District Magistrate. It is evident that the preliminary enquiry was submitted by the District Project Director who is a District Level Officer and the Project Director was appointed as an 'Enquiry Officer' under Rule 4 of the Rules 1997 by an order of the District Magistrate. In view of the aforesaid, the second contention of the counsel for the petitioner is also unfounded and is rejected. 7. It has also been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 24.3.2018 has been passed without considering the reply of the petitioner submitted to the show cause notice issued to him. The said contention of the counsel for the petitioner is belied from the records. A perusal of the order dated 24.3.2018 passed by the District Magistrate shows that the said order has been passed after considering the reply of the petitioner submitted to the show cause notice. The said contention of the counsel for the petitioner is belied from the records. A perusal of the order dated 24.3.2018 passed by the District Magistrate shows that the said order has been passed after considering the reply of the petitioner submitted to the show cause notice. Under Rule 5 of the Rules 1997, the District Magistrate has to form only a prima facie opinion as to whether any ground exists for institution of a final and formal inquiry against the Gram Pradhan under Rule 6 of the Rules 1997 and in case he is prima facie satisfied as stated above, the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan shall be ceased under 1-proviso of Section 95(1)(g) of Act, 1947 read with Rule 5 of Rules 1997. 8. There is no illegality in the order dated 24.3.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh. 9. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.