Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR
Smt. Neelam Devi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Civil Sectt. Lko And 2 Others – Respondents
Writ C No.6303 of 2024
Decided on : 24-07-2024
PANCHAYAT RAJ - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION - Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, Section 95 (1) (g); Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997, Rule 8 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, which allows for the seizure of financial and administrative powers of a Pradhan during an inquiry. It also examined Rule 8 of the Inquiry Rules of 1997, which mandates that inquiries be concluded within six months but does not specify consequences for failing to do so. The court interpreted the six-month period as directory rather than mandatory, allowing the inquiry to continue beyond this timeframe. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition, as the petitioner could not regain powers while the inquiry was pending.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat, faced allegations of misconduct and mismanagement of public funds, leading to a preliminary inquiry that substantiated the claims. Her financial and administrative powers were seized under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. The petitioner challenged this order and subsequent proceedings in court, arguing that the inquiry was not concluded within the six-month timeframe mandated by the Inquiry Rules of 1997.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the six-month period for concluding the inquiry was not adhered to, the lack of specified consequences for exceeding this period rendered it directory. The court ruled that the inquiry could continue, and the petitioner could not regain her powers until its conclusion.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could have her financial and administrative powers restored during the pendency of the inquiry, and whether the six-month timeframe for the inquiry was mandatory or directory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the six-month period for conducting inquiries under Rule 8 of the Inquiry Rules of 1997 is directory in nature, allowing for the continuation of proceedings beyond this timeframe without nullifying the inquiry. The court emphasized that the absence of specified consequences for failing to meet the deadline indicates that the authority is not functus officio after six months.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the court directing the District Magistrate to conclude the inquiry expeditiously within two months, provided there are no legal impediments.
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Fatehpur Sangat, Block and Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur being elected in 2021 and was discharging her duties of the said post. Certain complaints were made with regard to her discharge of duties and working and conduct as Pradhan. It was alleged that despite the public money being allocated the work of re-boring of the hand pump and also the work of interlocking and supply of Hume Pipes was not got done as per the prescribed specifications and there were allegations of defalcation of State funds and consequently preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by District Panchayati Raj Officer, District Sultanpur. In the said inquiry the allegations were found to be substantiated and accordingly in exercise of the powers under Section 95 (1) (g) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were seized by means of the order dated 4.11.2023.
3. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition against the aforesaid order being writ C No.10633 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court by means of order dated 7.12.2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections and grounds which was legally permissible before the competent authority. It has been submitted that the petitioner submitted detailed objections before District Magistrate, Sultanpur. The final inquiry was also conducted and report was submitted on 15.4.2024 which was placed before the District Magistrate, who in pursuance of the report issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 27.4.2024 and the petitioner had again knocked the doors of this Court assailing both the orders in writ C No.4434 of 2024. The said writ petition was allowed and this Court was of the view that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner and accordingly the State respondents were directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law. It has been submitted that in pursuance of the judgment and order of this Court dated 22.5.2024 the proceedings are still pending and have not attained finality.
4. It is in aforesaid facts and pendency of the regular inquiry against the petitioner under Section 95 (1) (g) that the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the District Magistrate to restore her final and administrative powers.
5. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry proceedings have to be concluded within a period of six months as provided for in Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up -Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997) where in Rule 8 it is provided that the inquiry officer shall conclude the inquiry within six months from the date of receipt of the complaint and forward to the State Government. He submits that despite expiry of more than six months the inquiry has not been concluded and consequently the proceedings initiated against the petitioner should be dropped and her financial and administrative powers deserves to be revived. It has been further submitted that the period of six months as provided for in Rule 8 of the Rules of 1997 is mandatory in nature and accordingly, further conduct of the proceedings beyond the period of six months are illegal and arbitrary.
6. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that in pursuance of the judgment and order of this Court dated 22.5.2024 the matter was remanded back to the District Magistrate to proceed afresh from the stage of conduct of final inquiry and the proceedings are underway and under the law the proceedings shall be conducted wit
The six-month timeframe for concluding inquiries under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 is directory, not mandatory, allowing inquiri....
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 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 complaint did not need to strictly comply with the Enquiry Rules 1997, and the DM had the power to order a preliminary enquiry even without a proper complaint.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a balance between the Act's purpose and the power given to the executive to intervene and suspend the working of a duly elected....
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
