Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Anjali Devi (Pradhan) - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy, Panchayat Raj and Others - Respondent
Miscellaneous Single No. 22059 of 2018
Decided On : 27-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Suresh Chandra Yadava, Adv.
The removal of an elected official must adhere to the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, including a preliminary enquiry and an opportunity to explain, failing which the proceedings are invalid.
Headnote:
Embezzlement - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 95(1)(g) - 4, 52,000.00 - Preliminary Enquiry - Closed Mind - Removal of Pradhan
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected Pradhan, was accused of embezzlement and had her financial and administrative powers ceased by the District Magistrate. The petitioner alleged submitting a reply to the notice, but the District Panchayat Raj Officer denied receiving it. The petitioner challenged the order ceasing her powers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the order ceasing the petitioner's powers was passed without a preliminary enquiry and without affording her an opportunity to explain, violating the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules. The Court also noted the District Magistrate's closed mind at the stage of recording a prima facie satisfaction, rendering subsequent proceedings unfair and biased.
Issues: Violation of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and Rules, lack of preliminary enquiry, closed mind of the District Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the order ceasing the petitioner's powers was invalid due to the lack of a preliminary enquiry and the District Magistrate's closed mind. It also emphasized that if the basic order is invalid, the consequential orders automatically fall.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order ceasing the petitioner's powers and barred the District Magistrate from proceeding with a final enquiry against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. The petitioner is the elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mahadev Shivpur, District Balrampur. On 18.6.2018, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Balrampur issued a notice to the petitioner and to Sri Durgesh Chaudhary, Secretary, Gram Panchayat requiring them to furnish to the former the information sought for in the said notice within the time mentioned therein or else, it was stated, it would be presumed that the noticees were guilty of embezzlement. The Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), Gaisari, Balrampur was directed to serve a copy of the said notice upon the noticees. The relevant portion of the said notice is extracted below: -
*vr% vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkidh xzke iapk;r dks foRrh; o"kZ 2017&16 esaa jkT; foRr vk;ksx ,oa 14ok¡ foRr vk;ksx ds vUrxZr miyC/k djk;h x;h /kujkf'k ds lkis{k djk;s x;s dk;Z dk dk;Zokj fooj.k ,oa ml ij fd;s x;s O;; vkfn fooj.k cSad LVsVesUV ds lkFk rFkk foRrh; o"kZ 2018&19 esa Iyku Iyl ij viyksM djk;s x;s dk;Z;kstuk ,oa dk;Z;kstuk ds vuqlkj djk;s x;s dk;Z ,oa ml ij fd;s x;s O;; dk fooj.k ckpmlZ lfgr v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa ,d lIrkg ds vUnj miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA ;fn vki }kjk le;kUrxZr mijksDrkuqlkj okafNr vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha djk;k tkrk gS] rks vkids xzke iapk;r dks miyC/k djk;h x;h /kujkf'k ds lkis{k vkgfjr dh x;h lEiw.kZ /kujkf'k dk nq#i;ksx ekurs gq, izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk nh tk;sxh] ftlds fy, vki Lo;a mRRkjnk;h gksxasA*
2. According to the petitioner, she submitted her reply along with the relevant documents in the office of the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), Gaisari, Balrampur on 25.6.2018, denying the charges levelled against her. The Assistant Development Officer, it is alleged, forwarded the reply of the petitioner to the District Panchayat Raj Officer along with his covering letter dated 26.6.2018 and the same was received in the office of the latter on 27.6.2018.
3. On 2.7.2018, the District Magistrate, Balrampur passed an order under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') whereby and whereunder the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were ceased. The portion of the order dated 2.7.2018 to which the attention of this Court was drawn by the counsel for the petitioner is extracted below: -
*xzke iapk;r egknso f'koiqj fodkl [k.M xSlM+h dks foRrh; o"kZ 2017&18 esa prqFkZ jkT; foRr vk;ksx ,oa 14ok¡ foRr vk;ksx ds vUrxZr miyC/k djk;h x;h /kujkf'k ds lkis{k fnuk¡d 06-06-2018 dks vo'ks"k /kujkf'k dh tkudkjh ftyk vxz.kh cSad izcU/kd ds ek/;e ls izkIr dh x;hA ftyk vxz.kh cSad izcU/kd }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s lwpuk ds vuqlkj xzke iapk;r ds xzkefuf/k&izFke [kkrsa eq0 27]856-00 #0 ek= [kkrs esa vo'ks"k gSA iz/kku ,oa lfpo] xzke iapk;r }kjk o"kZ 2018&19 esa Iyku Iyl ij fcuk dk;Z;kstuk viyksM djk;s gh fcuk vkbZ0Mh0 ds eq0 4]52]000-00 #0 dh /kujkf'k vkgfjr dj xcu@ nq#i;ksx fd;s tkus gsrq izFke n`"V;k nks"kh ik;s x;s] ftlds QyLo#i ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh }kjk vius dk;kZy; i= la[;k&709 fnuk¡d 18-06-2018 }kjk uksfVl fuxZr djrs gq, fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k ,oa xzke iapk;rksa esa O;; dh x;h /kujkf'k ls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;s tkus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k] ijUrq iz/kku ,oa lfpo }kjk dksbZ izfrmRrj izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k u gh dksbZ vfHkys[k fn;k x;k] ftlls Li"V gS fd xzke iz/kku Jh 'ks"kjke ,oa lfpo xzke iapk;r Jh nqxsZ'k pkS/kjh] xzk0fo0v0 }kjk xzke iapk;r ds xzkefuf/k& izFke [kkrs ls eq0 4]52]000-00 #0 fudky dj viO;;@xcu fd;k x;k gSA
vr,o eSa d`".kk d#.ks'k] ftyk eftLVsªV] cyjkeiqj m0iz0 iapk;rjkt vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk& 95¼1½¼N%½ esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, Jherh vatyh nsoh] iz/kku] xzke iapk;r& egknso f'koiqj fodkl [k.M&xkSlM+h ds foRrh; ,oa iz'kklfud 'kfDRk;ksa ds iz;ksx ,oa d`R;ksa ds lEiknu ij rRdky izHkko ls jksd yxk;k tkrk gS ,oa Jherh vatyh nsoh] iz/kku] xzke iapk;r& egknso f'koiqj fodkl [k.M&xSlM+h dks ,d ;qfDr;qDr volj iznku djrs gq, funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og viuk i{k leLr lk{;kas lfgr 15 fnol ds vUnj izLrqr djsa] vU;Fkk vkidks gVk;s tkus ds lEcU/k es
