Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39059 of 2018 Petitioner :- Guddo Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Ram Bahadur,Shashi Prakash Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Singh,Lallan Prasad Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 3.11.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 by which the financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized by appointing three members committee of Gram Panchayat Niwada, Block Muskara, District Hamirpur as well as by which recovery proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under Section 27(1) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order ceasing powers of the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner inasmuch as the documents demanded by the petitioner were not supplied by the respondent authorities. It was further submitted that infact the observation in the impugned order that the petitioner was supplied such documents on 25.10.2018 is incorrect. He further submits that supply of such documents is necessary and as such the impugned order is not sustainable.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order and submits that there is no such requirement in law to supply any such document to the petitioner and in this regard he has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others 2011 (1) AWC 488 (FB).
I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of record I find that it has been specifically mentioned in the impugned passed under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act ceasing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner that the documents demanded by the petitioner were supplied to him on 25.10.2018.
During course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that infact the documents were supplied to the petitioner on 5.11.2018, whereas the impugned order was passed on 3.11.2018. There is no such assertion in the petition that such documents were supplied to him on 5.11.2018. There is no averment in the entire writ petition that this statement is incorrect. Present petition was filed on 22.11.2018. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain oral submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner in absence of any pleading or assertion made in the petition.
Even otherwise, in the Full Bench decision it has been categorically held by this Court while answering the question framed that "A pradhan is neither entitled to be associated in the preliminary enquiry nor is entitled to the copy of the preliminary report. However, before an order ceasing the financial and administrative power is passed, his explanation or point of view or the version to the charges should be obtained and considered".
It is, therefore, very much clear that the petitioner was not entitled even a copy of the preliminary inquiry report and it is not in dispute that inspite of the show cause notice dated 14.9.2018 no reply was submitted by the petitioner till the passing of the impugned order dated 3.11.2018 passed under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act.
In such view of the mater, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned herein passed under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case it is provided that the final inquiry be concluded in accordance with Rules.
This Court finds that it would be appropriate to keep the order of the same date passed under Section 27(1) of the Act regarding recovery of surcharge in abeyance till the final orders are passed after the final inquiry is conducted.
With this observation, present petition stands disposed of, however, without interfering in the order passed under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Lalit Shukla