Allahabad High Court
Sanju Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 19 December, 2023
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240361
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35291 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sanju Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramanuj Tripathi,Ashwani Tripathi,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Disha Srivastava,Krishna Dev Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhirendra Kumar Singh Rathor
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Ramanuj Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Singh Rathor, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned inquiry report dated 22.07.2023 submitted by respondent no.5 and a further prayer to direct the respondents to decide the objection dated 27.07.2023 submitted by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Aligarh.
On 11.12.2023 the following order was passed :-
"1. Heard Ms. Disha Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 5 and Sri D.K.S. Rathor, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 6(11) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UP-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1947 empowers the petitioner to remain present at the time of enquiry but the said enquiry has been concluded without participation of the petitioner.
3. Rebutting to the aforesaid facts counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 submits that petitioner has no locus as the petitioner is a wholly complainant. He submits that it is incorrect to say that the petitioner was not a party at the time of regular enquiry. He prays for short time to place some documents relating to the enquiry.
4. List on 19.12.2023 as fresh."
Learned counsel for the petitioner on the said date submitted that the petitioner/complainant has not been permitted to participate in the inquiry as conducted against the Pradhan. In support of her submission, she has relied upon a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2013 10 ADJ 345. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph no.34 of the aforesaid judgment which is as follows :-
"Thus it is evident from the scheme of the Act and the rules framed there under, the complainant only has a right to participate in the regular enquiry to the extent rules provided for, but he has no locus to challenge the order passed by District Magistrate either on the report of preliminary enquiry or that of final enquiry."
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submits that the judgment as relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in her case as paragraph no.34 to the aforesaid judgment itself mentions that the complainant has only a right to participate in regular inquiry to the extent rules provide but has no locus to challenge the order passed by District Magistrate either on the report of preliminary enquiry or that of final enquiry.
As regards, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 6(11) of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules 1997, the complainant should be provided the opportunity to be present at the time of enquiry.
In view of judgment passed in the case of Writ-C No.17665 of 2023 (Mahendra Singh vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others), wherein a detailed discussion regarding the procedure has been dealt with, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand.
Learned counsel for respondent submits that there is no such procedure of hearing the complainant while conducting the final enquiry. Even otherwise, the petitioner being complainant has no locus to file such a petition, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2010(10) ADJ 1 (FB).
In view of the above, the petitioner being complainant has no locus to file this petition.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2023
Kalp Nath Singh
