Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Smt. Pinki Devi - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 5335 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 - Section 27, (2) - U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 - Rules 256, (1), (3), 257, 243, (A) to (O) - Services over post - Misappropriation and misuse of funds - Inquiry conducted - Quash order - Issue direction to quash order passed by respondent no. 3 as well as order passed by respondent no. 2 – Entire determination has been fastened against petitioner has been conducted by authorities other than Chief Audit Officer. [Para 18]
Finding of the Court: Inquiry as conducted which initiated entire proceedings against petitioner whereupon respondent no. 3 relied upon and entire determination has been fastened against petitioner has been conducted by authorities other than Chief Audit Officer or by District Audit Officers, and as such, respondent no. 3 exceeded its jurisdiction specifically with regard to determining liability against petitioner – It is apparent from order which impugned petition that inspite of taking specific grounds at time of preferring Appeal before respondent no. 2 there is hardly any discussion available with regard to competency of respondent no. 3 while determining loss which has been attributed to petitioner and as such, same is liable to be set aside - Orders dated passed by respondent nos. 3 and 2 respectively is hereby quashed and set aside.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri S.C. Dwivedi assisted by Shri Sheikh Moazzam Inam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Satyendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 3 not to take any action in pursuance of the impugned orders."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that inquiry has been conducted with regard to certain loss, misappropriation and misuse of the funds which has to be utilized for the public cause under the supervision of Gram Vikas Adhikari, Block Bahadurpur, District-Basti and the petitioner was rendering her services over the same post.
4. The said inquiry has been conducted by the Committee comprises of District Horticulture Officer, Tehsildar, Sadar, District Basti and Assistant Engineer, D.R.D.A. for ascertaining the fact which is specifically with regard to the irregularities while performing the public work under the supervision of the petitioner as well as Gram Pradhan of the concerned Village.
5. On the basis of inquiry report as submitted by the Inquiry Committee, the District Magistrate i.e. respondent no. 3, determined the loss of Rs.3,52,083/- and the same has been fastened in equal proportion to be recovered from the petitioner, Ex-Gram Pradhan along with Assistant Engineer, Bahadurpur, District-Basti vide order dated 29.08.2022.
6. Having being aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner challenged the same before the respondent no. 2 who has been designated as Appellate Authority in pursuance to the judgment and order dated 06.12.2022 and as such, the same has been adjudicated by the respondent no. 2 under the strict compliance of the directions passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18959 of 2022 (Smt. Pinki Devi Versus State of U.P. and Others).
7. While preferring the Appeal before the respondent no. 2, the specific stand taken up by the petitioner regarding the competency of the Committee constituted by the District Magistrate for Enquiry as well as the respondent no. 3 being the District Magistrate which is contrary to the Section 27(2) wherein the prescribed authority who is competent to fix the amount of the surcharge according to the procedure has been defined only in the case where the responsibility is fastened against the Pradhan or other member of the Gram Panchayat or Joint Committee or any other Committee constituted under this Act and as such, being the Village Development Officer/Village Secretary, the respondent no. 3 proceeded against the petitioner under the statutory provisions as defined under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1947, for better appreciation of legal issues defined under Section 27 of the Act of 1947 and the Rules 256 and 257 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1947") the same are being reproduced hereinbelow:-
Provided that such liability shall cease to exist after the expiration of ten years from the occurrence of such loss, waste or misapplication, or five years from the date on which the person liable ceases to hold his office, whichever is later.
(2) The prescribed authority shall fix the amount of the surcharge according to the procedure that may be prescri
As per Rules 256 and 257 of 1947 Rules, enquiry ought to have been conducted by Chief Audit Officer.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice in administrative inquiries, quashing the recovery order due to jurisdictional flaws.
Point of Law : Section 2(q)(ii) defines “Prescribed Authority” as an authority notified as such by State Government, whether generally or for any particular purpose. It would mean that the Prescribed....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the respondent to initiate surcharge proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and the Surcharge Rules, along with the proce....
The court affirmed that the District Magistrate has the authority to cease a Pradhan's powers pending inquiry, and that the preliminary inquiry process does not necessitate the Pradhan's involvement.
The limitation for initiating recovery proceedings under Section 216(4) does not apply if the complaint was filed during the term of the officeholder.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of compliance with statutory provisions in appointing an officer for conducting an inquiry, emphasizing the importance of government ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
