Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 495 (ALL)

Netain v. State of U. P.

2020-02-13

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri ceasing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, who is the sitting Gram Pradhan of Village Gram Panchayat Patna, Development Block Nakaha, District Kheri. 3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that several frivolous complaints were filed, on the basis of which enquiry was instituted and the respondent No. 2 issued notice on 10.12.2019 to the petitioner to give explanation with regard to the completion of work of toilets that had to be constructed in her village under section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Since in the notice dated 10.12.2019, no date, time and place was mentioned for giving explanation, therefore, the petitioner could not give her explanation, although she approached the office of respondent No. 2 on several occasions. 4. From the pleadings on record, it is admitted by the petitioner herself that she has received notice on 10.12.2019, which is in the nature of show cause notice after preliminary enquiry was conduced on several irregularities with regard to the allegation of embezzlement of funds released for construction of 533 toilets in the concerned village. It has also come out from the pleadings of the petition that the petitioner did not submit any explanation at all and therefore, the District Magistrate has passed the order impugned ceasing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner and also instituting the regular enquiry under the Rules, 1997 appointing the District Agriculture Officer as Enquiry Officer in the matter. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Full Bench of this Court in Vivekanand Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (111) RD 699 (F.B.) has held that if the report in the preliminary enquiry is adverse to the Pradhan, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the Pradhan and the explanation submitted should be considered before passing the order of ceasing the administrative and financial powers of the Pradhan. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon para-graph-107 of the report. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon para-graph-107 of the report. However, this Court on perusal of the same finds that in the said paragraph, it has been held that the Pradhan is neither entitled to be associated with the preliminary enquiry nor is entitled to the copy of the preliminary report. However, before an order ceasing financial and administrative power is passed, his explanation and point of view or version to the charges should be obtained and considered. 7. In this case, the petitioner was issued notice along with the copy of the preliminary enquiry report but she failed to reply within time given by the District Magistrate in the said notice. Under some misconception of law, the petitioner believed that date, time and place of hearing shall be fixed and she shall be given personal hearing in the matter. 8. However, no personal hearing is required at the initial stage. The personal hearing is given as well as date time and place is fixed only where regular enquiry is being conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The ground taken by the petitioner in the petition is misconceived. 9. However, since the District Agriculture Officer has been appointed as Enquiry Officer in the matter, it is expected that regular enquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1997 and opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioner to place her case after all evidence concluded in the preliminary enquiry against her is supplied to her. 10. Let a report be submitted by the District Agriculture Officer within a period of four months subject to the cooperation by the petitioner in the matter. 11. The District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, on receipt of Enquiry Report shall take decision again in accordance with law within a further period of two months. 12. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.