Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3001
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla, JJ.
Rajbeti Sankhawar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 16809 of 2014
Decided On : 26-03-2014
For the Appellant : Anoop Trivedi and Prahlad Kumar Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: C.S.C., K.N. Tripathi and Ashish Agrawal
The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair inquiry and due process in cases of alleged misconduct, leaving the decision to the relevant authority.
Headnote:
Nagar Panchayat - Seizure of Powers - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, Section 48(2-A) - The judgment discusses the seizure of financial and administrative powers of the elected President of Nagar Panchayat under the proviso to section 48(2-A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, elected President of Nagar Panchayat, challenged the order seizing her financial and administrative powers due to serious differences with the Executive Officer and allegations of misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations and counter allegations indicated a potential incident of misconduct, but refrained from investigating further, leaving it to the State Government's jurisdiction and discretion.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of financial irregularities, breach of rules, and a physical assault attempt during an official meeting, leading to the seizure of powers by the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the right to freedom of expression does not extend to unethical conduct, but refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the incident, leaving it to the State Government to conduct a fair inquiry.
Final Decision: The court disposed off the writ petition, directing the State Government to transfer the Executive Officer and conclude the inquiry within three months.
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Vivek Kumar Birla, JJ.
1. The petitioner is the elected President of Nagar Panchayat, Kamalganj, Farrukhabad. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Having considered the submissions raised and in view of the
