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

2013 Supreme(All) 2814

TARUN AGARWALA
MAHENDRA SINGH (ELECTED VILLAGE PRADHAN) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari for the Petitioner; C.S.C. and Q.H. Siddiqui for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—On the basis of a complaint a preliminary inquiry was made under Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Rules of 1997’). On the basis of this preliminary inquiry report the petitioner’s financial and administrative powers was ceased. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition, which was disposed of directing the District Magistrate to conclude the final inquiry under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997.

2. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Magistrate appointed an inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997. The inquiry officer submitted his report purported to be under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997. The District Magistrate, after considering the matter, passed a final order, removing the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1947 on the ground of dereliction of duty and financial irregularity. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

3. In paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the writ petition it has been specifically stated that the inq






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