Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Sher Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner, a village Pradhan of Gram Sabha Sitwanpur Pithu, Block Mohammabadad, district-Farrukhabad has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the communication dated 28.12.2022 of Chief Development Officer, Farrukhabad addressed to District Magistrate, Farrukhabad recommending to initiate proceedings against petitioner under Section 95 (1) (g) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act, 1947’) as he failed to perform his duties imposed by State for maintaining a ‘Gaushala’ properly and has committed financial irregularities also. Petitioner has failed to disclose the source of document impugned as it is a communication between one authority to other except that this document was in public domain.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his submission to challenge aforesaid communication, has submitted that Chief Development Officer is not an appropriate authority i.e. not a District Level Officer nor a Officer nominated by District Magistrate
The jurisdiction of the Chief Development Officer and the nature of the impugned communication as a preliminary inquiry were central to the Court's decision.
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 authority of the Chief Development Officer to issue a communication requesting action against an individual for alleged malpractices.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance with procedural requirements for initiating the removal and disqualification of an elected member of the Panchayat, includ....
The removal of a Gram Pradhan must comply with statutory inquiry procedures, and failure to do so renders the removal order illegal.
The Chief Executive Officer must personally conduct the enquiry under Sec. 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and challenges to the enquiry report should be made in the context of on....
As per Rules 256 and 257 of 1947 Rules, enquiry ought to have been conducted by Chief Audit Officer.
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
