Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14738 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bati Devi Widow Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.K.Parekh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
Learned Standing Counsel is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this petition in the third week of July, 2019.
Submission is that the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner was ceased by the order dated 14.01.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, which was challenged before this Court by way of Writ-C No.3027 of 2019, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the order disposed of writ petition vide order dated 29.01.2019 directing the Competent Authority to finalise the enquiry proceedings strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that six weeks' time granted vide order dated 29.01.2019 has come to an end and before it came to end the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar / respondent no.2 has passed an order dated 11.02.2019 appointing three members committee to discharge the duties of the petitioner, who is an elected Pradhan.
The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of concluding the enquiry against the petitioner, the District Magistrate is getting her duties discharged through three members committee. As yet enquiry proceedings have not been concluded.
Since respondent no.2 has not complied the order of this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to go into the merits of the order dated 14.01.2019 earlier passed by respondent no.2 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner and mould the interim relief prayed in the writ petiton in exercise of its inherent power to do justice.
From the record, it appears that the order was passed on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted her clarification regarding irregularities pointed in the preliminary enquiry report.
From a bare perusal of the enquiry report dated 03.11.2018, it appears that nine work items were considered in the enquiry report and in most of them no irregularities were found. Some of the work which was done by earlier Pradhan and the previous Secretary were also included in the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the points of preliminary enquiry report, which were against her and where the finding were in her favour, she did not submitted any reply, since it was not required. Even the preliminary enquiry was not properly done since her husband was involved therein by the respondents and after the death of her husband she was not allowed to participate in the preliminary enquiry and her financial and administrative power were ceased by the District Magistrate.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 14.01.2010 and 11.02.2019 passed by respondent no.2 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner are hereby stayed.
Respondent no.2 is directed to permit the petitioner to discharge her financial and administrative powers during the pendency of this petition or till the conclusion of the enquiry, which ever is earlier.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 SS