Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1118 (ALL)

Ambika Singh v. District Magistrate, Chandauli

2020-09-07

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2020
JUDGMENT : Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Saurabh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents-State. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 19.7.2020 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli, respondent No. 2. 3. It is contended that petitioner is an elected pradhan of village-Rewsa, Block- Skaldiha, District- Chandauli. It appears that a complaint was filed by one Ajay Kumar Singh against petitioner under Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. Acting on the said complaint, District Magistrate constituted a three member enquiry committee nominating District Horticulture Officer, Chandauli along with one Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Chandauli as member of the preliminary enquiry committee. Copy of the constitution of enquiry committee has been brought on record as Annexure-I to writ petition. It appears that said committee submitted its report, acting on which a show-cause notice was issued by District Magistrate to petitioner requiring him to reply the same within two weeks. As the petitioner failed to do so, respondent No. 1 proceeded to pass an order on 19.7.2020 seizing the financial and administrative power of petitioner and constituted a two member committee comprising of District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli and Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering, Chandauli as member for conducting an enquiry and submitting its report within two months. 4. Sri Singh contended that under Rule 2(c) of 1997 Rules read with Rules 4 and 5 only district level officer could be appointed as a member of the enquiry committee and an Assistant Engineer cannot be appointed member of an enquiry committee. He has relied upon certain decisions of this Court especially on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav v. State of U.P., 2010 (10) ADJ 1 , as well as the judgment rendered by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Misc. Single No. 984 of 2019 (Saleem Khan v. State of U.P. and another), decided on 24.4.2019, wherein the Court held that an Assistant Engineer was not a district level officer and the action of District Magistrate including him in the enquiry committee stood vitiated. 5. Reliance was also placed on a decision rendered by this Court in Mahmood Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2019(2) ADJ 381 , which held as under: "19. 5. Reliance was also placed on a decision rendered by this Court in Mahmood Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2019(2) ADJ 381 , which held as under: "19. This Court on the perusal of the Act and the Rules is of the clear view that an elected representatives can be removed only and strictly in accordance with law and in this regard the law which provides for removal of an elected representative has to be strictly construed. The enquiry report dated 18.4.2018 being conducted by two persons is not contemplated either under the Act or the Rules and furthermore, the Assistant Engineer, DRDA is not even District level officer as contemplated under Rule 2(c) of the said Rules. As the order impugned is based upon the said enquiry report dated 18.4.2018, the order impugned is held to be bad in law" 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of material on record, I find that District Magistrate, respondent No. 1 committed a grave error by constituting an enquiry committee consisting Assistant Engineer as one of the members, while he was not a district level officer as required under Rule 2(c) of the 1997 Rules. 7. As the legal position in regard to the enquiry officer as well as the committee of enquiry officers has already been settled by this Court in catena of judgments, I find that respondent No. 1 while passing the order impugned dated 19.7.2020 exceeded his jurisdiction and failed to take note of the decisions, which have been rendered by this Court on successive occasions. In view of above, order dated 19.07.2020 is patently illegal and cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. However, this order will not preclude respondent No. 1 to proceed against petitioner in accordance with law.