Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1245 (ALL)

Anamika Shukla v. State Of U. P.

2020-10-19

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. Following orders were passed by this Court in the matter on 5.10.2020:- ''Petitioner is the elected Pradhan and is aggrieved by the order of District Magistrate, Hamirpur dated 8.7.2020, whereby her financial and administrative powers have been ceased. The charge against the petitioner is of financial embezzlement to the tune of Rs.17,58,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that financial irregularities/ embezzlement was done by the Panchayat Secretary, who had charge in respect of two villages. In respect of first village it was found that nine cheques were issued in favour of two persons namely Munsif Farooqui and Sanjay Kumar. On enquiry it was found that the illegal payments were fraudulently made to these very persons. Attention of the Court has been invited to page 34 of the writ petition, which shows that petitioner also made a complaint against the Panchayat Secretary by stating that he is maintaining the cheque-book and it is alleged that these very persons were issued about 95 cheques in the petitioner's village also. It is stated that the fraud was pointed out by the petitioner herself but the authorities are helping and protecting the Panchayat Secretary. It is urged that the beneficiaries are the officials of the Panchayat Vibhag and, therefore, her claim is not being dispassionately examined. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain specific instructions from the District Magistrate, Hamirpur on the above aspect. Post as fresh, once again, on 19.10.2020. A copy of the order be provided by the office to the learned Standing Counsel within 24 hours." 2. Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions according to which the cheques which have been issued contains the signatures of the petitioner Pradhan. A certificate of the Bank Manager dated 24.3.2020 has also been annexed along with the instructions. It is stated that prima facie materials exists to implicate the petitioner subject to final enquiry to be held in accordance with Rule 5 and 6 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. It is urged that the verification from the Manager of the concerned Bank exits on record and consisted of material on the basis of the District Magistrate has taken decision to cease the administrative and financial powers of petitioner. 3. It is urged that the verification from the Manager of the concerned Bank exits on record and consisted of material on the basis of the District Magistrate has taken decision to cease the administrative and financial powers of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no complaint filed and, therefore, by virtue of Rule 3(5) of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 no enquiry can be entertained and the entire proceedings conducted are without an authority of law. It has also been stated that the implication of two persons clearly proves that the financial irregularity, if any, is at the instance of the Panchayat Secretary for which the petitioner cannot be implicated. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Singh Baghel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. So far as the entertainbility of complaint is concerned the Enquiry Rules of 1997 clearly lays down the procedure for entertainment of complaint and unless such complaint is supported by an affidavit, the authorities are not expected to proceed in furtherance of the complaint. The exigency which is being dealt with by Rule 3(5) of the Enquiry Rules, 1997, however, does not arise in the facts of the present case. The information with regard to financial embezzlement allegedly has been furnished by the petitioner Pradhan himself. Law is settled that the jurisdiction of the competent authority to proceed in case of financial and other irregularities is not limited to filing of complaint alone. Such facts once come to the notice of the authority their jurisdiction to proceed in the matter is not doubted. Reference in that regard can be had to the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (4) UPLBEC 3278. 5. In the facts of the present case though it is alleged that the entire irregularity is at the instance of the Panchayat Secretary but this Court is not inclined to entertain such contention particularly in view of the instructions furnished by learned Standing Counsel as per which the bank Manager has certified that the cheques encashed contain the signatures of the petitioner Pradhan also. Whether or not his signature exits or such signatures have been forged are matters which can be examined at the stage of regular enquiry in terms of Rule 6 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. 6. Whether or not his signature exits or such signatures have been forged are matters which can be examined at the stage of regular enquiry in terms of Rule 6 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. 6. Prima facie material exits to proceed against the petitioner as financial embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 17,58,000/-is otherwise admitted on record. This Court is of the considered opinion that no occasion arises to interfere in the matter, at this stage. It is, however, provided that the regular enquiry against the petitioner would be got concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The authorities shall strictly adhere to the procedure contained in Rule 6 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 while proceeding with the enquiry.