Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35625 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Saroj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Rai,Prateek Rai Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 5 and perused the record. Sri Prateek Rai, learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.6.
Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of impugned order dated 29.9.2018 passed by District Magistrate Jaunpur as well as consequential order dated 4.10.2018 passed by Block Development Officer Jalalpur, District Jaunpur.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted before passing the impugned order. He further submits that the order was passed in violation of provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-pradhan & Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 and the same has been passed without receiving any final report under Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules. Certain other arguments on the merit of the case were also raised and it is further submitted that it is wrongly noted that no reply was submitted by the petitioner whereas the petitioner has submitted reply dated 17.11.2017.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is only after preliminary enquiry the order has been passed, which requires no interference particularly, in view of the fact that final enquiry is still pending.
Insofar as the argument that complaint was not supported by an affidavit, no such pleadings has been taken in the present petition. However, still a perusal of the impugned order indicates that it mentions that an application/affidavit dated 11.05.2017 was submitted and when it was not disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 50716 of 2017 (Smt. Amravati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed which was disposed of with direction to decide the same.
In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the complaint was not in accordance with law.
It is not in dispute that the earlier reply submitted by the petitioner was considered, however, he has not given any reply to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. The preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Additional District Magistrate (Financial Revenue), Jaunpur, who submitted a report dated 5.9.2017. Admittedly, final enquiry is still pending and it is during preliminary enquiry show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner and apart from that his version it has also been considered in the preliminary enquiry report.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned herein.
However, keeping in mind that the final enquiry is still pending, it is being directed that the enquiry under Rule 5 and 6 of the the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up- Pradhan & Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, may be completed within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 SKG