Tarun Agarwala, J.;-

In a democracy governed by rule of law, an incumbent who is elected to hold an office for a term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law, such removal, if not done through a process of law, becomes a serious matter. It curtails the statutory term of the holder of the office and a stigma is cast on the holder of the office in view of the allegations levelled against him and if proved, renders him unworthy of holding the office which he held. This is precisely the Supreme Court has held in the case of Trilochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others, (2001) 6 SCC 260, holding that a singular or casual aberration or failure in the exercise of power was not enough; a course of conduct or plurality of aberration or failure in the exercise of power and that too involving dishonesty of intention was an “abuse of powers”. The Supreme Court further held that the legislature could not have intended the occupant of an elective office, seated by popular verdict, to be shown the exit for a single innocuous action or error of decision. The exercise of power given to the State Government under Section 29 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, has serious civil consequences on the status of an office bearer. After the commencement of the provisions of Part IX and Part IX-A in the Constitution of India, a constitutional status has been conferred upon the Adhyaksha of a Zila Panchayat and an Adhyaksha cannot be removed in an unceremonious manner. Serious insinuations have been levelled on the State. This is what has led the petitioner to approach this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner is the wife of an Ex-M.L.A. who was in the ruling party of the State Government when he was elected in the year 2007. On account of certain reasons, he resigned as M.L.A. and also from the primary membership of the ruling party and thereafter contested the by-election as an independent candidate from Vikas Nagar Constituency in which he lost the election in the year 2009.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner stood for election as Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat as an independent candidate and was elected in October, 2008 after defeating her nearest rival and a candidate of the ruling party, namely, Smt. Neeru Devi.

Smt. Neeru Devi had an axe to grind and, in order to show her allegiance to the political bosses filed a complaint before the Secretary, Panchayat Raj, levelling as many as eight charges against the petitioner contending that the petitioner had misused her office and abused her powers. The District Magistrate was directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry under the Rules, who submitted a report, on the basis of which, the Secretary, Panchayat Raj, passed an order dated 31st August, 2010 under Section 29 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said action, filed Writ Petition No. 1566 of 2010, in which an interim order dated 17th September, 2010 was passed staying the effect and operation of the order passed by the Secretary, Panchayat Raj. As a result of the interim order, the petitioner continued to function and exercise her powers as the Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Secretary, Panchayat Raj, being the competent authority, directed that a full-fledged inquiry be initiated against the petitioner for the alleged malpractices and accordingly, appointed the Commissioner, Garhwal, to make the necessary inquiry. The Commissioner submitted his report dated 26.10.2010 holding that out of eight charges levelled against the petitioner, five charges could not be proved and that two charges were partially proved and one charge w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document