Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1888 (ALL)

Geeta v. State of U. P.

2023-08-07

ALOK MATHUR

body2023
ORDER : (Order on C.M.A. No. 02/2023 - Amendment application) 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and perused the record. 2. In view of the facts stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of application for amendment, the application is allowed. 3. Learned counsel for applicant prays for and is permitted to make necessary amendment in the memo of writ petition. (Order on C.M.A. No. Nil of 2023 dated 31.07.2023 - Impleadment application) 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and perused the record. 2. Sri Amarnath Dubey, Advocate has moved an application for impleadment. 3. He has submitted that applicant is author of the complaint against the petitioner, and on the basis of his complaint action has been taken against the petitioner which has been assailed in the present writ petition and consequently he is a necessary party. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner does not object to the aforesaid facts. 5. In view of the above, the application for impleadment is allowed. 6. Let necessary impleadment be made in the memo of writ petition during course of the day. (Order on Writ Petition) 1. Heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi under provision to 95 (1)(g) of U.P. Panchayati Raj Rules, 1947 whereby financial and administrative powers of the petitioner who was working on the post of Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Mahitha District Hardoi have been seized. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the said order suffers from non-application of mind and also has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He has submitted that he has approached this Court on the previous occasion by challenging the order dated 27.02.2023 whereby on the previous occasion the respondents have seized the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner and this Court in Writ C No. 2729 of 2023 noticing the fact that the reply of the petitioner was not considered and had set aside the previous order dated 27.02.2023 directing the District Magistrate, Hardoi to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 4. 4. In pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 25.04.2023, the District Magistrate, Hardoi has passed the impugned order dated 12.06.2023. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the fresh order, which is nothing except reiteration of the previous order dated 27.02.2023. All the paragraphs and wordings have been exactly quoted in the present order except that one line has been added that he has been heard. He has also stated that in every paragraph there is a recital stating that petitioner was granted 15 days time to submit his response and because he has not submitted his response today i.e. 16.01.2023 the matter has been decided holding that all the allegations against the petitioner are acceptable to him as he has not responded to the said allegations. The said recital find mention in all the charges. 6. A perusal of the previous order dated 27.02.2023 indicates that the same recital on allegations and findings were recorded by the prescribed authority. When the prescribed authority was considering reply of the petitioner it was duty bound to take into account the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the response submitted by him and after due consideration of the response should have given his findings on the said allegations. 7. By reiterating the previous order and recording that the matter is being decided without considering the reply of the petitioner and the charges are accordingly proved clearly indicates that there has been no application of mind by the District Magistrate while passing the order dated 12.06.2023. It seems that the said order has been passed mechanically without considering the reply of the petitioner and the previous order of this Court dated 25.04.2023 has been complied with only by indicating that the reply of the petitioner has been considered without in fact even considering any of the submissions made by the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order also reveals that no finding has been recorded with regard to the reply submitted by the petitioner. 8. When this Court remands the matter for reconsideration before the competent authority, it is expected that the order of this Court should be complied with in letter and spirit. It is expected that competent authority shall pass a fresh order after taking into account the directions issued by this Court and pass a reasoned and speaking order. 9. 8. When this Court remands the matter for reconsideration before the competent authority, it is expected that the order of this Court should be complied with in letter and spirit. It is expected that competent authority shall pass a fresh order after taking into account the directions issued by this Court and pass a reasoned and speaking order. 9. A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the District Magistrate, Hardoi has not in fact complied with the direction of this Court dated 25.04.2023 but only given an eyewash with regard to the compliance. It is not expected that senior officers of the State should act in the manner as has been done in the present case. Such an action does not spouse the cause of justice but merely impedes the same and if the order of this Court are not complied with the litigation merely increases and the disputes which could have been settled are given fresh lease of life and in any view of the matter, the authorities are duty bound to comply with the directions of this Court in letter and spirit. We hope and trust that in the present case, when the matter is remitted again and District Magistrate should pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in letter and spirit and the same should be demonstrated in the order to be passed. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the order dated 12.06.2023 is set aside with the liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh reply within ten days from today and the District Magistrate, Hardoi shall pass a fresh order expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks thereafter in accordance with law. 11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.