Shahida Begam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12676 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3313 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Shahida Begam
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj , Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jayshanker Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Veerendra Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

C.M.Application No.Nil of 2023

Shri Veerendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate has filed an application for impleadment of the complainant Shri Krishna Shankar Mishra, which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the action on the complaint of the applicant has been taken therefore he is a necessary party, but he has not been impleaded, therefore the application may be allowed and he may be impleaded as respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the action has been taken on the complaint of the complainant he is not a necessary party in the further proceedings. He relies on the judgment and order dated 03.03.2023 passed in Writ-C No.7195 of 2022;Smt. Kamala Devi Versus State of U.P. and others.

By means of the aforesaid judgment, the issue as to whether the complainant under the provisions of Rules 1997 on whose complaint orders have been passed against the Pradhan is a proper or necessary party in a writ petition filed by the Pradhan challenging an order passed on the basis of the said complaint and as to whether the judgments in the cases of Abdul Moid Khan Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine All.6419 and Smt.Padmawati Versus State of U.P. and Others passed in writ petition No.23948 (MS) of 2018 decided on 16.11.2018 have correctly held that the complainant is not a necessary party and cannot be heard nor be impleaded as a party and as to whether the case of Amir Khan Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 SCC OnLIne All.269 would also govern the case of the complainant seeking to be impleaded as a respondent in a petition filed by the Pradhan challenging an order passed on the basis of the said complaint, has been referred to the Larger Bench.

In view of above and on due consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the order dated 03.03.2023 passed in Writ-C No.7195 of 2022;Smt. Kamala Devi Versus State of U.P. and others (Supra), the applicant is permitted as intervener in the matter.

In Re;Writ Petition

1. Heard, Shri Jay Shanker Sukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the complaint made by the complainant twice the inquiry has been held and in the second inquiry the petitioner has not been found guilty of the allegations, even then by means of the impugned order dated 11.04.2023, third time the inquiry has been directed to be made, which cannot be done. He, relying on the Government Order dated 18.04.2019, contained in annexure no.15 to the writ petition, submits that once the inquiry has been held the second inquiry cannot be held in view of paragraph 9 of the said Government Order. Thus he submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that in the first inquiry the petitioner was found guilty of the allegations and after issuing show cause notice and after considering the reply of the petitioner the inquiry was not found to have been done properly and a complaint was also made by the complainant, therefore the inquiry was directed by means of the order dated 26.12.2022. In pursuance thereof notice dated 02.01.2023 was given. In response thereof the petitioner had submitted reply and after inquiry the inquiry report was submitted on 24.02.2023, in which the allegation in regard to Shri Hari son of Shri Garib Prajapati was found proved. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18th March 2023 annexing certain documents, which was referred to the Inquiry Officer by the District Magistrate. Considering the same, after issuance of show cause notice on 27.03.2023 by the District Magistrate, the Inquiry Officer submitted the supplementary report only on the basis of the documents annexed by the petitioner alongwith his representation and without considering the report submitted by him earlier or examining further. Therefore on account of two contrary reports by one and the same enquiry officer, by means of the impugned order the District Magistrate has directed for a fresh inquiry by the Deputy Agriculture Director, Sultanpur. There is no illegality or infirmity in it. He further submits that so far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on paragraph 9 of the Government Order dated 18th April 2019 is concerned, it is misconceived and not tenable because the same relates to the final inquiry and in the present case only the preliminary inquiry is being conducted. The writ petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the intervener also submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed in accordance with law as there are two contrary reports by one and the same officer and the supplementary report was submitted without inquiring only to benefit the petitioner.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

6. A complaint dated 30.08.2022 was made in regard to the illegalities being committed by the petitioner, on which the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sultanpur was directed to conduct inquiry and submit the report. In pursuance thereof, after conducting inquiry, the inquiry report dated 12.10.2022 was submitted by him, in which the petitioner alongwith the then Panchayat Secretary was found guilty. In pursuance thereof a show cause notice dated 18.10.2022 was issued to the petitioner. The reply of which was submitted by the petitioner on 19.11.2022. Before any decision could be taken on the same, it appears that some complaint was again made, therefore considering the same by means of order dated 26.12.2022 the District Magistrate, Sultanpur appointed the District Horticulture Officer, Sultanpur as inquiry officer.

7. The District Horticulture Officer, Sultanpur issued the notice dated 02.01.2023 to the petitioner alongwith others for submission of reply by 06.01.2023. In response thereto the petitioner submitted his reply dated 10.01.2023, contained in annexure no.7 to the writ petition. Thereafter, after inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 24.02.2023, in which the petitioner has been found guilty of the allegation regarding levelling of field of Shri Hari son of Shri Garib Prajapati. Shri Hari son of Shri Garib Prajapati had stated that he himself has got done the levelling of his field, whereas the petitioner has shown to have spent Rs.35,700/- on the said levelling under the MNREGA Scheme. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a representation dated 18th of March 2023, stating therein that the petitioner had left to submit certain evidence in his reply as they were left in the Almirah, to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, on which the District Magistrate, Sultanpur directed to take appropriate action. Thereafter the District Magistrate, Sultanpur issued a show cause notice dated 27.03.2023, in pursuance to the inquiry report, in regard to the aforesaid allegation for utilization/financial irregularities of Rs.35,700/-.

8. Thereafter, the District Horticulture Officer, Sultanpur submitted a supplementary report on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 18th of March 2023 and in pursuance to the directions issued by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur on 20.03.2023, considering the documents annexed by the petitioner in his representation without any further inquiry or considering the report dated 24.02.2023 submitted by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the statements including of Shri Hari son of Shri Garib Prajapati.

9. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice dated 27.03.2023 on 05.04.2023. The complainant also filed an objection dated 03.04.2023. Thereafter considering the contradictory reports of the District Horticulture Officer, Sultanpur on the same point, the District Magistrate, Sultanpur by means of the impugned order dated 11.04.2023, directed for re-enquiry/spot inquiry of the complaint by the Deputy Agriculture Director, Sultanpur to be concluded within a period of thirty days.

10. In view of above, the District Horticulture Officer, Sultanpur on the one hand submitted a report dated 24.02.2023 in regard to the illegalities committed by the petitioner on the basis of the statements and on the other hand submitted a supplementary report dated 29.03.2023 merely on the basis of the documents annexed by the petitioner alongwith the representation dated 18th of March 2023 without considering his earlier report which was submitted on the basis of the evidence and material on record and without any further inquiry, whereas supplementary report could not have been submitted without considering his earlier report or making any further inquiry. In case the representation was moved with some documents, the supplementary report could not have been submitted merely on the basis of documents annexed with the representation without at least verifying the said documents from the concerned person particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in which already a contrary report was submitted on the basis of statement of the concerned person. Therefore this court does not find any illegality or error in the decision of the District Magistrate, Sultanpur for holding the inquiry by some other District Level Officer and accordingly directing to the Deputy Agriculture Director, Sultanpur to hold inquiry by the order dated 11.04.2023.

11. So far as the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the inquiry has been conducted, the second inquiry cannot be conducted in view of paragraph 9 of the Government Order dated 18th of April, 2019 is concerned, the same is totally misconceived and not tenable. Paragra 4-4(1) and (2) of the Government Order dated 18th April, 2019 provides holding of preliminary inquiry and paragraph 5 of the aforesaid Government Order provides that on the basis of preliminary inquiry and in case, prima facie, case for inquiry is made out the District Magistrate shall direct for an inquiry from the officer other than the officer who has conducted the preliminary inquiry. Thereafter the procedure for inquiry has been provided in subsequent paragraphs of the Government Order dated 18th April 2019. Paragraph 7 provides for submission of the inquiry report and paragraph 8 of the Government Order provides for forwarding of the documents of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. Paragraph 9 of the Government Order provides that once the inquiry conducted on a complaint based on the similar facts is held in accordance with the provisions of the inquiry rules, after inquiry, re-inquiry would not be done. Therefore the said provision is not applicable on the preliminary inquiry. Even otherwise the inquiry cannot be said to have been held in accordance with the provisions of the inquiry rules in the present matter therefore the said provision is not applicable.

12. The interim order dated 02.09.2021 passed in Misc. Single No.1113 of 2021; Prahlad Tiwari Versus State of U.P. and others by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court, contained in annexure no.16 to the writ petition, relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, is neither applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case nor can be binding being an interim order.

13. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case this court is of the view that there is no illegality or error in the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, which may call for any interference by this court. The writ petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.

14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs..

.

......................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

Order Date :- 25.4.2023

Banswar