Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. Gupta and I. P. Vasishth, JJ.
SAROJ KUMARI YADAV - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Writ Petition 2304 (M/b) Of 1998
Decided On : 09/11/1998
UP KSHETRA PANCHAYATS AND ZILA PANCHAYATS (REMOVAL OF PRAMUKHS, UP-PRAMUKHS, ADHYAKSHA AND UPADHYAKSHA) ENQUIRY RULES, 1997 - RULES 3 AND 4 - PRELIMINARY INQUIRY - CONDUCTED BY AN OFFICER NOT BELOW THE RANK OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - COMPLAINT - ACCOMPANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT - VERIFIED IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - PRELIMINARY INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES - ORDERS PASSED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INQUIRY - QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Four separate writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of orders passed by the respondents divesting the petitioners of their administrative and financial control over the affairs of their respective Zila Panchayats. The petitioners alleged that the orders were passed on the basis of a preliminary inquiry conducted by an Additional District Magistrate, who was not competent to conduct such an inquiry under the UP Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (the Enquiry Rules). The petitioners also challenged the validity of the complaints on which the preliminary inquiry was based, arguing that they did not comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Additional District Magistrate was not in accordance with the Enquiry Rules, as it was required to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of District Magistrate. The court also held that the complaints on which the preliminary inquiry was based did not comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules, as they were not accompanied by an affidavit verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court further held that the orders passed on the basis of the preliminary inquiry were therefore invalid and quashed them.
Issues: 1. Whether the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Additional District Magistrate was valid under the Enquiry Rules? 2. Whether the complaints on which the preliminary inquiry was based complied with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Additional District Magistrate was not valid under the Enquiry Rules, as it was required to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of District Magistrate. The court relied on the definition of "District Magistrate" in the Act and the Enquiry Rules, which specifically provided that a preliminary inquiry with regard to the affairs of a Zila Panchayat should be conducted by a District Magistrate. 2. The court held that the complaints on which the preliminary inquiry was based did not comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules, as they were not accompanied by an affidavit verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court relied on the plain language of Rule 3, which required that every complaint be accompanied by an affidavit verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision: The court allowed all four writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders. The court also restored the withdrawn administrative and financial powers to the petitioners and restrained the respondents from taking any action on the basis of the impugned preliminary inquiry reports.
( 1 ) WE are seized of 4 separate but almost similar, abovenoted, writ petitions revolving around the scope and implications of Rules 3 and 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshelra Panchayats and Zila panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs. Up-Pramukhs. Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Enquiry rules. 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Enquiry Rules], framed under the U. P. Gram panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhinium. 1961 (U. P. Act No. XXXIII of 19611 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Since they were argued together in a lot, therefore, we propose to dispose them off by the common instant judgment.
( 2 ) TO have a brief glance in the factual matrix of these cases, in the context of Writ Petition No. 1896 of 1998 ; per her propagation the petitioner was elected as Adhyaksh of Sultanpur Zila panchayat in May, 1995 : she belongs to a particular political party which was opposed to the programme and philosophy of the ruling party of the day, therefore, they started creating unwarranted hindrances in the discharge of her duties, so much so that on having failed in their bid to decimate her by way of an election petitioner they arranged a motion of no-confidence on 31. 5. 1997 which, too, failed for want of requisite quorum on 18. 6. 1997. During the meanwhile, inspired and joined by respondent No. 6, Shiv Kumar Singh they moved a frivolous complaint to the Chief Minister alleging administrative and financial irregularities on her part with regard to the management of the affairs of the Zila Panchayat. The complaint was neither properly verified nor supported by any valid affidavit as required under the Enquiry Rules. Another complaint was purported to have been sent to the Chief Minister of U. P. by one Parasnath which was never made available to the petitioner but she understood that it, too, lacked proper verification and material support by way of an affidavit. Both these complaints were pursued on political considerations in view of a D. O. dated 29th January. 1998 sent by the 5 M. L. As. belonging to the ruling group in the State Government.
( 3 ) IT was pleaded that thus exploiting the political and administrative leverage, the respondents procured a cryptic, unsubstantiated and unauthorised inquiry report from the Additional District magistrate, Sultanpur on whose basis the impugned orders dated 24. 6. 1998 contained in annexure-2. Annexure-3 and Annexure-3a were passed divesting her of the administrative and financial control of the affairs of the Zila Panchayat which she was legitimately exercising by virtue of being its Adhyaksh.
( 4 ) BESIDES impugning the said orders on the ground of political mala fides, the petitioner also pleaded that they were invalid otherwise too because of being in gross violation of the legislative arrangement manifested by Rules 3 and 4 of the Enquiry Rules.
( 5 ) THE respondents filed their counter and resisted the proceedings with the contention that the relevant orders were validly passed by a competent authority in the light of sufficient prima facie material collected during the course of inquiry into the complaints with regard to mismanagement of the Panchayat affairs and grave financial irregularities : that the petitioner has been divested of some of the functions to facilitate a full-fledged inquiry by the commissioner with which she would be duly associated and provided proper opportunity to rebut the charges. For the obvious reasons the allegations of mala fide or any other extraneous considerations were rebutted.
( 6 ) THE facts of the Writ Petition Nos. 384 and 708/98 (M/b) brought by Smt. Saroj Kumar)Yadav are of overlaping nature. The gist thereof was that she was elected as Adhyaksh of Zila panchayal. Bareilly in May. 1995 ; that she belongs to a particular family which was involved in public life and her husband was an M. L. A. from Aonla constituency but lost the last assembly election against one Dharmpal Singh who won on B. J. P. ticket and was now holding office of the s
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
