Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 23 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9596 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Civil Sectt. Lko. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Gupta,Shikha Srivastava,Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans,Suresh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vishnu Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Vishnu Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the caveator.
The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Chief Development Officer, Bahraich by constituting a two member committee for making an enquiry against the petitioner who is a Pradhan and for quashing of the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Bahraich and to further direct the respondents not to create any type of hindrance in peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Village Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Yadavpur, Matehia, Block Huzurpur, District Bahraich. It has further been sought to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his financial as well as administrative powers vested as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Yadavpur, Matehia, Block Huzurpur District Bahraich as usual.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Yadavpur, Matehia, Block Huzurpur, District Bahraich. Against the petitioner, some complaints were made by Shri Hari Sharan Singh i.e. respondent no. 7 to the District Magistrate to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and take an appropriate action regarding the embezzlement and the irregularities committed by the petitioner while functioning as a Pradhan.
It is further submitted that the Chief Development Officer has constituted a two member Committee for making a preliminary enquiry in the matter under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1997'). As per the Rules, 1997, the District Magistrate is empowered to constitute a Committee for holding a preliminary enquiry and the Chief Development Officer is not empowered to constitute a committee. It is further submitted that financial and administrative power has been ceased by the District Magistrate in pursuance of the enquiry report submitted by the Committee constituted by the Chief Development Officer, hence, the order is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment and order dated 23.04.2013 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1784 (M/S) of 2013 (Smt. Shyam Wati vs. State of U.P. and Ors.)
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 have submitted that when the authorities were not taking action on the complaint made by the respondent no. 7, the respondent no. 7 has approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 4398 of 2022 and the said writ petition was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 in the light of the written instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel stating therein that on 06.04.2022 under the orders of District Magistrate, Bahraich, the Committee has been constituted and the enquiry is going on.
It is further submitted that the order dated 22.11.2022 has been passed mainly on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by a Committee constituted by the order of the District Magistrate and also referred the enquiry report submitted by the committee appointed by the Chief Development Officer, hence there is no illegality in the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the District Magistrate and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, going through the record of the case, the statutory provisions and the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the position which emerges out is that under the Rules 1997, the District Magistrate is empowered to constitute a Committee for conducting a preliminary enquiry as the main enquiry against the Pradhan, Up Pradhan and Members of the village Panchayat. The Chief Development Officer is not empowered to constitute a Committee under the Rules, 1997.
In the present case, the petitioner has not disclosed or whispered even a single word about the earlier order of the District Magistrate dated 06.04.2022 constituting a two member Committee to initiate an enquiry on the complaint made against the petitioner. It has also not been disclosed that the Committee constituted by the order of the District Magistrate has submitted its report on 30.08.2022 against the petitioner. This fact may be seen from the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the District Magistrate.
The District Magistrate while passing the order dated 22.11.2022 has referred the enquiry report submitted by the Committee constituted by the Chief Development Officer but the order has been passed on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by a Committee constituted by the District Magistrate and except the reference, no details have been taken into consideration from the report of the Committee constituted by the Chief Development Officer while passing the order seizing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
The judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, the order was passed solely on the basis of the report submitted by the Committee constituted by the Chief Development Officer.
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.12.2022
Nitesh
