Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Ranjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Director, Panchayati Raj, Uttarakhand, by which the petitioner has been suspended under Section 138(4) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (“the Act”) till the conclusion of final inquiry; as also for quashing the complaint dated 10.06.2022 submitted by Chandra Shekhar Mudela to the Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, in a chronology, are as follows:-
(ii) On 12.04.2022, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner in respect of a complaint.
(iii) On 16.4.2022, a Committee was constituted by the respondent no. 3, the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar to look into the charges made against the petitioner by Mr. Ravindra Singh Rana.
(iv) The petitioner challenged the constitution of Committee on 16.04.2022 by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 990 of 2022, which was dismissed on 10.05.2022 with the observation that the constitution of Committee
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 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.
Disqualification of a Panchayati Raj member requires adherence to prescribed inquiry procedures; failing which, actions are illegal and contravene principles of natural justice.
The removal of a Gram Pradhan must comply with statutory inquiry procedures, and failure to do so renders the removal order illegal.
Suspension of an elected representative is valid when misconduct is established, with the suspension being justified under relevant statutory provisions, ensuring accountability and public confidence....
The availability of alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction when there is a violation of natural justice or when the decision-making process is without jurisdiction.
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
