Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2730
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla, JJ.
Rajbeti Sankhawar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 16809 of 2014
Decided On : 26-03-2014
For the Petitioner:- Anoop Trivedi,Prahalad Kumar Bhardwaj
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.,Ashish Agrawal
The main legal point established is the court's emphasis on the need for a fair inquiry by the State Government to address allegations of misconduct and disruption, as well as the court's directive to transfer the respondent no. 3 and conclude the inquiry within a specified timeframe.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Elected President of Nagar Panchayat - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, Section 48(2-A)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected President of Nagar Panchayat, challenged the State Government's order seizing her financial and administrative powers under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, based on allegations of misconduct and disruption of Nagar Panchayat's functioning.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of misconduct and disruption raised serious concerns, particularly regarding an incident where the petitioner allegedly attempted a physical assault during an official meeting. The court emphasized the need for a fair inquiry by the State Government to resolve the controversy.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged misconduct of the petitioner, including financial irregularities and disruptive behavior, leading to the seizure of her powers by the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while it could not investigate the complex issue of misconduct, it directed the State Government to conduct a fair inquiry and pass orders within three months. The court also directed the transfer of the respondent no. 3 from his present posting.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, with the court declining to interfere with the impugned order but directing the State Government to transfer the respondent no. 3 and conclude the inquiry within three months.
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Vivek Kumar Birla,JJ.
The petitioner is the elected President of Nagar Panchayat, Kamalganj, Farrukhabad.
2. The challenge raised by the petitioner is to the order dated 19.2.2014 passed by the State Government whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as the President of the Nagar Panchayat have been seized under the proviso to Section 48 (2-A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
3. We have heard Sri Anoop Trivedi extensively for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Keshri Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Agrawal for the respondent no. 3.
4. Certain allegations were made against the petitioner which became subject matter of a preliminary inquiry and on a consideration of the documents on record, we prima facie find that this dispute had arisen on account of serious differences between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3, Executive Officer which ultimately has resulted in impediment of the functioning of the Nagar Panchayat. There are allegations and counter allegations, but some of the allegations against the petitioner relate to her conduct as Chairman including that the petitioner allegedly allowing her husband who is not even a member to participate in the official meetings of the Nagar Panchayat which was a clear breach of rules.
5. Not only that when the incident took place in a meeting, it is alleged by the respondent no. 3 that the petitioner attempted a physical assault on him and other members with a shoe in her hand.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these allegations are false and they have been painted adversely inasmuch as, according to the reply of the petitioner, she had taken a posture in self-defence after she had been threatened with a similar assault by a Class-IV employee of the Nagar Panchayat.
7. There are other allegations as well but Sri Trivedi submits that so far as the financial irregularities are concerned they have not been even found prima facie through as per the report of the District Magistrate dated 8.1.2014 Annexure-10 to the writ petition. He submits that this report has not been taken into consideration and the seizure of the powers has taken place almost a year after the incident.
8. Learned counsel further submits that there was neither any urgency nor any exigency for the exercise of powers by the State Government in this background when the entire complaint against the petitioner appears to be malicious. The impugned order therefore deserves to be quashed.
9. Sri Tripathi on the other hand submits that all these allegations and counter allegations and the prima facie satisfaction of the State Government are a preliminary exercise which is a prelude to the main inquiry, and he contends that such a preliminary satisfaction is always subject to any final orders. He submits that these allegations and counter allegations as well as the evidence in support thereof, and the explanation given, is yet to be examined and considered by the State Government finally. He therefore submits that given the face value of the allegations some of which are admitted to the petitioner there is a clear prima facie case of misconduct against the petitioner which is amenable to scrutiny in exercise of such powers as has been done in the present case. He therefore submits that it is for this reason and in view of the unsavoury situation that has emanated on account of the incidents indicated in the reports, that the respondent no. 3 was also recommended to be transferred from his present place of posting.
10. A short counter affidavit has been filed bringing on record a photograph and some newspaper reports to contend, that the admission of the petitioner stands substantiated and corroborated by the said reports has been filed, and therefore this Court may not interfere with the impugned order at this stage.
11. Having considered the submissions raised and in view of the
