JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Vashishtha Tewari, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 5 learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Parties agree that the present writ petition may be finally at the admission stage itself without calling for counter affidavit.
2. The petitioner, Raj Kapoor Sharma is the elected Pradhan Gram Panchayat Mahuari, Block Pathardewa District Respondent no. 5, Jai Prakash is alleged to have made certain complaints against, the petitioner on the ground that i the Pradhan (petitioner) has committed various financial and administrative irregularities. A preliminary enquiry was held against petitioner as Pradhan in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 1997 Rules). By means of the order dated 30th March, 2005 the District Magistrate seized/suspended the financial and and administrative powers of the petitioner as Pradhan in exercise of power under Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and has appointed a three members committee to look after the affairs of the Gram Panchayat.
3. The aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, Deoria has been challenged basically on the ground that the preliminary the complaint made against the petitioner has been conducted by the the Assistant Engineer, The Assistant Engineer is not a District Level officer and therefore, cannot hold inquiry against the Pradhan in view of the provisions of 1997 Rules.
4. On behalf of the respondent it is Stated that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry has not been conducted as per the provisions of 1997 Rules, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the District Magistrate for a fresh enquiry being held, by nominating a district level officer in a time bound manner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
6. From the order impugned in the present wrtt petition passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria it is apparently clear that the enquiry Into the allegations made against the petitioner was directed to be conducted by the nominated officer, namely, Assistant Engineer, Gramin Adhishashi Seva, Prakhand Deoria and on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Engineer the impugned order has been passed.
7. On receipt of the preliminary enquiry report the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Deoria issued a letter dated 17th March, 2005 forwarding the said enquiry report to the petitioner and called for his explanation in respect thereto, so that District Magistrate Deoria may pass appropriate orders. The Preliminary, Enquiry report appended to the letter dated 17th March 2005 has been brought on record along with the letter of the District Panchayat Raj Officer dated 17th March, 2005 as Anneuxre-5 to the writ petition.
8. From the enquiry report it is apparently clear that the said enquiry has been conducted by the .Assistant Engineer, Gramin Adhishashi Seva, namely, Akhtar Hussain on the directions of the Executive Engineer, Gramin Adhishashi Sevar Prakhand Deoria as per the letter No. 2164/S.T/Janch/04-05 dated 14th September, 2004.
9. It is thus established that Executive Engineer, who was appointed as the nomineted officer under 1997 Rules to conduct the enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner, directed his sub-ordinate namely Assistant Engineer Gram Adhishashi Seva, Deoria to conduct the enquiry against the! petitioner.
10. In the opinion of the Court under the provisions of 1997 Rules the nominated officer has no authority to sub delegate his power as the enquiry officer upon his Sub-ordinate. The executive Engineer, as such, could not have sub-delegated the authority to conduct the enquiry upon this junior officer, namely, Assistant Engineer. Therefore, the enquiry Conducted by the Assistant Engineer cannot be said to be an enquiry conducted by the nominated officer in accordance with the provisions of 1997 Rules. Accordingly no adverse action can be taken against the petitioner on the basis of said enquiry, which has not been conducted by nominated officer. I Therefore, jthe order dated 30th March, passed by the District Magistrate which is based on the said enquiry report, is hereby quashed.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is provided that he District Magistrate may get fresh enquiry conducted into the allegations made by the respondent no.5 by a District Level officer at the earliest possible, and to take appropriate action in the light thereof. The aforesaid exercise may be completed by the District Magistrate, Deoria within one month from the date a certified of this order is produced before District Magistrate.
12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed subject to the observations made hereinabove.