SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(All) 1602

M.KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI
MUKESH RAJPUT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Avanish Mishra, J.H.Khan, Shashi Nandan, W.H.Khan

M. KATJU, R. S. TRIPATHI, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 23. 6. 2003 Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which administrative and fiscal powers of the petitioner have been taken away from him till the completion of the enquiry against him.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has alleged that he was elected Adhyaksh of Zila Panchayat, Farrukhabad on 8. 8. 2000 and is functioning as such since then. It appears that there were serious allegations against him and a preliminary enquiry was held by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, into those charges. In that enquiry, the petitioner was given a show cause notice but he did not give reply.

( 4 ) WE have perused the findings of the preliminary enquiry and they are very serious in nature. A large number of them are regarding grave financial irregularities.

( 5 ) UNDER Section 29 of the U. P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 the state Government can remove an Adhyaksha if in an enquiry, he is found guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties. The proviso to Section 29 states that if an Adhyaksha is prima facie found to have committed fi








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top