The petitioner has sought the quashing of the order dated 30th June, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar under Section 95(1)g of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 by which the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan have been ceased and a direction has been issued to the Enquiry Officer to submit the report.
It is stated that a notice dated 23rd May, 2012 with the preliminary enquiry report was served on the petitioner by the District Magistrate and the petitioner was required to submit a reply to the charges levelled in the show cause notice. The petitioner submitted a reply and also submitted statement of persons and, thereafter, the order dated 30th June, 2012 was passed by the District Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the impugned order, an observation has been made by the District Magistrate that the signatures of the persons on the statement submitted by the petitioner were at variance with the signatures made by these persons before the Enquiry Officer but without recording any finding as to which of the signatures were genuine he has not accepted the statements submitted by the petitioner. It is also his submission that subsequently such persons had also given their statements on 19th June, 2012, but copy of these statements had not been given to the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that as the District Magistrate has placed reliance on the statements, the order dated 30th June, 2012 is in the teeth of principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents states that it may not be necessary to file any counter affidavit and the petition may be disposed of at this stage. He has, however, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order which may call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution as adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 23rd May, 2012.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also submitted that the petition should be dismissed for the reason that a show cause notice with the preliminary enquiry report had been served upon the petitioner to which he had filed a reply.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
It is no doubt true that the show cause notice dated 23rd May, 2012 with the preliminary enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and he also filed a reply but the impugned order refers to statements of certain persons submitted by the complainant on 19th June, 2012 before the District Magistrate and these have been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order. It was obligatory for the District Magistrate to have supplied the copy of the statements to the petitioner to enable him to file a reply and then ascertain which copies of the statement were correct but that was not done. The order passed by the District Magistrate, therefore, violates the principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside.
The order dated 30th June, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar is, accordingly, set aside. It shall, however, be open to the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 19.7.2012 SK