Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12306 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shamim Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Nigam,Anwar Ali,Sanjai Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satya Priya Upadhyay
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.3.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Ballia.
The petitioner herein is an elected Pradhan. By the impugned order dated 10.3.2018 he was removed as an elected Pradhan after final inquiry.
Challenging the same, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the final inquiry was conducted in utter violation of Rule 6 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. Drawing attention to inquiry report he submitted that it only mentions that at the time of final inquiry the complainant Sri Amal Nath Pathak, Sri Satendra Shukla and the petitioner were present. Drawing attention to paragraphs 27 to 63 of the petition it was submitted that specific procedure has been provided for conducting final inquiry, wherein specific charges have to be framed and the petitioner has to be intimated about the charges seeking his reply and the normal procedure for production of evidence fixing time, date and place for conducting inquiry has to be done but the same has not been followed. He submits that it is not in dispute that the procedure was not followed and only on the basis of the inquiry report dated 28.6.2017 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his reply and thereafter the order of removal in exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 has been passed. He further submits that the this order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as Rule 6 of the Rules has to be complied with strictly, which was not done.
In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments in the cases of Mukesh Kumar (Pradhan) vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (1) AWC 242, Sher Ali vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (7) ADJ 736, Smt. Pushpa vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (2) AWC 1491, Mahendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (2) AWC 1538, Bhagwan Deen Verma vs. State of U.P. and others 2005 (4) AWC 3281 and Quadri Begum vs. State of U.P. and others 2009 (4) AWC 3608.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that a detailed inquiry was held and the petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing by issuing show cause notice, which was not found satisfactory and as such the impugned order requires no interference by this Court.
I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of record I find that the specific averments have been made from paragraphs 28 to 63 to the petition and it has been categorically stated in the writ petition that at no point of time specific charges were framed and the petitioner was supplied the same charges for the purpose of submission of his reply and at no point of time time, date and place of the inquiry was ever fixed. All these paragraphs have been replied in the counter affidavit by only saying that the same are not admitted and are denied. Paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30 of the same are relevant, which says that paragraphs 28, 29, 34 to 39 and 40 to 63 are incorrect and denied or they are referred to the rules.
Clearly, no inquiry was conducted in the manner as contemplated in Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.3.2018 is not sustainable in the light of judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is, accordingly, quashed.
However, this decision will not preclude the respondent authorities to initiate fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with Rules of 1997.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Lalit Shukla