Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38981 of 2018 Petitioner :- Fatma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bal Krishna Yadav,Bhola Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amresh Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 4 and Sri Amresh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 - Gaon Sabha.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Bareilly by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Abhaypur Keshavpur, Vikas Khand Bhojipura, district Bareilly under Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 as amended by U.P. Act No. 9 of 1994 filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order aforesaid and not to interfere into the peaceful functioning of the petitioner on the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Abhaypur Keshavpur, Vikas Khand Bhojipura, district Bareilly and not to constitute any Committee in pursuance of the impugned order has been made.
Challenging the aforesaid order, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that final enquiry report dated 26.6.2018 was given in favour of the petitioner. When no final orders were being passed, she filed Writ C No. 35876 of 2018, Fatma Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2018 directing the District Magistrate to pass final orders on the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report preferably within six weeks. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 has been passed by the District Magistrate removing the petitioner from the post of Gram Pradhan even without giving him show cause notice before passing final orders under Section 95 (1) (g) proviso of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not dispute the same.
In such view of the matter, no fruitful purpose would be served by calling for a counter affidavit and keeping this writ petition pending.
In absence of compliance of the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) proviso of the Act the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is hereby quashed.
The District Magistrate, Bareilly, respondent no. 2 is, however, at liberty to pass fresh orders after complying with the aforesaid provisions in case he proposes to proceed further in the matter. Such proceedings may be concluded, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 p.s.