Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Ram Lakhan Harshit – Appellant
Versus
D. M. Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel representing the State - respondents.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of a recovery notice dated 06.12.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, Lucknow and recovery citation dated 07.01.2006 issued by the Tahsildar, Mohanlalganj, as also a notice dated 08.09.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, along with the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of an inquiry report dated 25.04.2005 submitted by an inquiry committee consisting of Chief Development Officer, Unnao, Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Unnao and District Panchayat Raj Officer, Unnao.
3. On 08.09.2005, the District Magistrate, Lucknow had issued a notice under Rule 256 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 stating that the Government had constituted a three member inquiry committee consisting of the Chief Development Officer, Unnao, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Unnao and Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Unnao to inquire into the works con
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.
As per Rules 256 and 257 of 1947 Rules, enquiry ought to have been conducted by Chief Audit Officer.
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 removal of a Gram Pradhan must comply with statutory inquiry procedures, and failure to do so renders the removal order illegal.
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....
Auditor to surcharge illegal payments and loss caused by negligence or misconduct - Section 243 of Act, 1994 clearly stipulates that no recovery can be made after expiration of a period of three year....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, respecting the scope of show cause notices, and considering previous findings in subsequent proceedings.
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 that the decision-making process adopted by the respondents must comply with the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate of Section....
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
