Allahabad High Court
Haresh Kumar Rastogi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. ... on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2732 of 2023
Petitioner :- Haresh Kumar Rastogi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Tewari,Sheo Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
(1) Heard Shri Ravi Shanker Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and go through the record.
(2) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by Opposite Party No.4- District Panchayati Raj Officer, Sitapur, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of pending departmental proceedings against the him.
(3) The petitioner joined the post of Junior Clerk on 22.06.1991 in the office of District Panchayati Raj Officer, Sitapur. The complaint dated 02.10.2022 was made by few residents of the Village-Todarpur, Police Station- Hargaon, Sitapur to the Hon'ble Minister of State, (Prison), Uttar Pradesh regarding misappropriation of the Government funds by Village Pradhan and Secretary of the Village Panchayat, Pipraghoori, Vikas Khand-Hargaon, District-Sitapur. The Minister concerned wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Sitapur on 03.10.2022 for taking necessary action on the complaints of the residents of the Village-Pipraghoori.
(4) The District Magistrate concerned, in turn, directed the Chief Development Officer, Sitapur, to constitute a committee to inquire into the allegation and take necessary action. The committee was constituted consisting of Deputy Commissioner (Labour and Employment) and Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Sitapur and the said team inquired into the matter by physically inspecting the ponds in the village. The said committee conducted the inquiry in relation to the work done by the previous Village Pradhan, however, it is said that no inquiry regarding work done by the present Pradhan in relation to the installation of generator was made.
(5) In the meantime, District Panchayati Raj Officer, Sitapur, got an inquiry conducted through Additional Panchayati Raj Officer, who submitted his report on 15.11.2022. In the said report, it was said that the present Village Pradhan and Panchayat Secretary had not done any work of installation of solar panel, street light, generator and other works.
(6) The District Magistrate concerned after perusing the report dated 15.11.2022 directed to take action under Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Guarantee Act, 2005 and constituted a three members committee in response to financial irregularities allegedly committed by the Village Pradhan and Panchayat Secretary.
(7) The residents of the village made certain complaints in respect of the working of three members committee alleging therein that they were relative of the Village Pradhan and the said committee was reconstituted on 03.02.2023 by the Deputy Panchayati Raj Officer.
(8) The said committee reconstituted by District Panchayati Raj Officer was challenged by the Village Pradhan by filing writ petition, bearing Writ C No.1225 of 2023. The said writ petition came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2023 and the order dated 30.12.2022 was quashed whereby, the three members committee had been constituted and it was directed that inquiry may be conducted against the District Magistrate, Sitapur. The District Magistrate, Sitapur in compliance of the judgment and order dated 16.02.2023 passed by this Court constituted a committee headed by the District Panchayati Raj Officer to fix the liability of erring officials.
(9) The District Panchayati Raj Officer issued a show cause notice dated 21.02.2023 to the petitioner as to why the disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him as the petitioner had not placed the main inquiry report dated 15.11.2022 conducted by the Additional District Panchayati Raj Officer. It is stated that while preparing the narrative, the petitioner had placed the report dated 11.11.2022 conducted by the two members committee and as such, the petitioner was guilty of not taking the important work sincerely.
(9) The petitioner in paragraph 15 of the writ petition has specifically stated that the Additional District Panchayati Raj Officer,-Respondent No.5 was not ready to include his own inquiry report dated 15.11.2022 and, as such, he got the narrative in this regard changed by getting it typed by the computer operator- Shri Pawan Kumar and the said narrative was placed for the office of the Chief Standing Counsel straight away without getting it approved by District Magistrate and District Panchayati Raj Officer, who were also parties to the said writ petition. While replying to the show cause notice dated 25.02.2023 issued by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, the petitioner in his reply clearly indicated that the instructions prepared by him was changed by the opposite party No.5, Additional District Panchayati Raj Officer, who got the factum of his inquiry report dated 15.11.2022 removed from the original instructions by saying that he had inquired the matter on the oral instructions of District Panchayati Raj Officer and, as such, this should not be included.
(10) The District Magistrate issued a letter dated 25.02.2023 seeking explanation from the petitioner regarding not placing the true and correct facts while preparing the narratives for filing counter affidavit before this High Court. The petitioner had replied to the show cause notice and, thereafter, petitioner had placed report vide impugned judgment and order. When the petitioner's stand specifically stated that the petitioner had included the inquiry report dated 15.11.2022 and it was the Additional District Panchayati Raj Officer, who changed the narratives and excluded the said inquiry report, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the act of Additional District Panchayati Raj Officer. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents discloses that there is no denial to those assertion made by the petitioner that he had specifically included the inquiry report dated 15.11.2022 in his narrative.
(11) From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the petitioner is being made scapegoat for the work he has done correctly as he has included the inquiry reported dated 15.11.2022 in his narrative for filing the counter affidavit, which was got changed by the Additional District Panchayati Raj Officer. In view thereof, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the act of the Additional District Panchati Raj Officer. The petitioner was Junior Clerk and even otherwise he could not be within his domain to prepare the report for filing the counter affidavit in this High Court in response to the notice issued in the revision. In view thereof, I find substance in the submission of Shri Ravi Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.03.2023 is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
Raj
