Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition was filed in the year 2017 challenging an order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the District Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Gonda ceasing financial and administrative power of the petitioner who is an elected Pradhan. This Court while entertaining this petition on 07.09.2017 has recorded the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that a copy of the preliminary inquiry report was never served upon the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1947') as also the Full Bench decision in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs State of U.P. and another reported in 2010(1)) ADJ 1 (FB). The matter was taken up on 18.09.2017 when recording the same arguments this Court stayed the order dated 19.08.2017 till next date of listing. Thereafter the interim order has continued. The tenure of the petitioner is to expire in the month of December, 2019.
When the counsel for the opposite parties was confronted that in the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Viveka Nand Yadav (supra) it has been held and observed that the copy of the preliminary inquiry report was not required to be supplied to the delinquent, therefore, the interim order granted to the petitioner was contrary to the Full Bench decision, therefore, the basis on which the interim order was passed was non-existent in the eyes of law, he accepted this position.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire exercise was actuated by political malice. This Court has perused the pleadings and records. Atleast at this stage no case of political malice is made out.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact from the reasons mentioned in the impugned order no ground for removal of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan is made out. The Court has perused the impugned order which mentions that the husband of the petitioner was extracting money from the beneficiaries of the Pradhan Mantri Avas Yojna and the petitioner turned a blind eye to this illegal act thereby facilitating and supporting this act. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the provision of Section 95(1)(g)(iii) of the Act, 1947 he could not give any satisfactory explanation but submitted that he does not want to press this plea leaving it open for being raised in the final inquiry or before a decision is taken by the District Magistrate at the appropriate stage. In view of this statement, the Court does not express any view except that the aforesaid provision is relevant.
Apart from the above, no other argument was advanced by the counsel for the parties.
As the Court does not find any valid ground for interference with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the final inquiry and/or the final decision by the District Magistrate.
If the final inquiry has not been completed as yet and final decision has not been taken this shall be done within a period of three months but before the term of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan expires.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interim order is hereby discharged.
Order Date :- 30.8.2019 Vijay (Rajan Roy, J)