Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
O. P. Garg, J.
SANDHYA GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 2517 Of 1998
Decided On : 02/19/1999
PANCHAYAT RAJ - Removal of Pradhan - Grounds - Financial irregularities - Procedure - U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 - Compliance - Necessity - Order of removal - Validity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected Pradhan of a Gaon Panchayat, was removed from office by the District Magistrate on the grounds of financial irregularities, including misappropriation of public funds and illegal gratification. The petitioner challenged the order, contending that the removal was based on unsubstantiated allegations and that the prescribed procedure for removal under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (the Rules of 1997) was not followed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the removal order was passed in violation of the Rules of 1997. The enquiry against the petitioner was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The complaints against the petitioner were not supported by affidavits and were not made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1997. There was no report of the District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO), who was required to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4. The enquiry was conducted by the Naib Tahsildar and the Junior Engineer of the area, which was in violation of the Rules of 1997. No formal enquiry, as contemplated under Rule 6, was conducted. The District Magistrate did not appoint an enquiry officer and relied on a joint report submitted by the Naib Tahsildar and the Junior Engineer. The petitioner was not served with articles of charge or a statement of imputations, and was not given an opportunity to defend herself. The Court held that the order of removal was based on flimsy grounds and was passed in a mechanical, cursory, and perfunctory manner.
Issues: 1. Whether the removal of the petitioner from the office of Pradhan was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997? 2. Whether the order of removal was based on substantial evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the removal of the petitioner from the office of Pradhan was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. The enquiry against the petitioner was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend herself. 2. The Court held that the order of removal was not based on substantial evidence. The allegations against the petitioner were not supported by affidavits or other reliable evidence, and the District Magistrate did not consider the petitioner's explanation before passing the order.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of removal and directed the petitioner to be reinstated as Pradhan of the Gaon Panchayat.
( 1 ) THE petitioner-Smt. Sandhya Gupta admittedly is the duly elected Pradhan of Gaon Panchayat. Jagatpur, Post Muradganj. Block Ajitmal, district Auraiya, which was earlier a part of district etawah. Certain complaints were received against her with regard to financial irregularities including squandering of public money as well as extracting illegal gratification. The Chief development Officer, Etawah passed an order on 19-7-1997 stripping the petitioner of her financial powers by invoking the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947 ). This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26863 of 1997 in which the order passed by the Chief development Officer (for short c. D. O. ) was directed to remain in abeyance. Consequently, the c. D. O. rescinded his earlier order dated 19,7. 1997 and restored the financial power of the petitioner by passing fresh order dated 28. 8. 1997.
( 2 ) AN enquiry into the complaints made against the petitioner was initiated under the provisions of U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan. Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules. 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997 ). Naib Tahsildar as well as Junior Engineer of the area were entrusted with the task of inquiring into the complaints and the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short s. D. O. ) by his letter dated 12. 8. 1997 addressed to the C. D. O. Etawah forwarded the joint report dated 5. 8. 1997 submitted by the Naib Tahsitdar and Junior Engineer specifying that three concrete charges have been found to be correct against the petitioner-firstly, that Sri Hart om Gupta who is younger brother of the husband of the petitioner (Dewar) had extracted a sum of Rs. 2,100 as illegal gratification from each of the eight allottees of the houses constructed under the Indira Awas Scheme ; secondly, one Naresh Chand. a member of the Block development Committee had obtained a sum of Rs. 1. 800 as illegal gratification from Smt. Sonwati. wife of Ram Sewak in the bank premises in connection with the allotment of house in the said scheme ; and, thirdly, excess amount of Rs. 8,127 has been shown to have been incurred in executing the various projects under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna during 1996-97. According to report of the Junior Engineer, the estimated cost of the various works comes to Rs. 1. 00,230 while a sum of Rs. 1,08. 357 is shown to have been spent. On receipt of the report of the S. D. O. . the District Magistrate, Etawah issued notice under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act of 1947 on 20. 9. 1997 to the petitioner to show cause within three days as to why she should not be removed from the office of Pradhan as she has no moral right to continue on the post on account of misappropriation or squandering of public funds and misuse of office, a copy of which is annexure-2 to the writ petition. Denying the charges against her. the petitioner submitted a reply on 9. 10. 1997. a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition and maintained that the complaints have been engineered against her at the behest of certain persons who are out to tarnish her image as well as her family members. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 14. 11. 1998, Annexure-3 to the writ petition was passed by the District Magistrate, Auraiya removing the petitioner from the office of Pradhan by observing that the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice was not satisfactory and that she has not been able to bring on record the facts which may fortify her stand. It is this order which has been challenged by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is prayed that the impugned order 14. 1. 1998 be quashed and the respondents be commanded not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as a duly elected Pradhan of the village.
( 3 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
