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, including the necessity for complaints to adhere to the specified rules and the distinction between the roles of the District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate in conducting preliminary inquiries.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this petition is made to an office order dated 28.04.2023, passed by the respondent no.1 the State of Uttarakhand (“the State Government”) by which, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Member, Jila Panchayat, Bageshwar under Section 138 Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (“the Act”) and the petitioner has further been disqualified for being chosen a member of the Panchayat and being elected a Panchayat/Pradhan/Up-Pradhan/ Pramukh/Up-Pramukh/Chairman/Vice-Chairman for a period of five years. The petitioner also challenges the enquiry proceedings including inquiry report dated 18.10.2018 submitted by the respondent no.3 the Commissioner Kumaon Mandal (“the Commissioner”); the petitioner also seeks restoration of his status as Member of Jila Panchayat forthwith.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The petitioner was Chairman, Jila Panchayat, Bageshwar (“the Chairman”) from the year 2014 to 2019.

4. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:-

(i) In the year 2014, the petitioner contested the election of Chairman, Jila Panchayat Bageshwar. The respondent no.7 Govind Singh Danu was one of the contestants. The petitioner was elected as Chairman. But, the election of the petitioner was challenged by the respondent no.7 Govind Singh Danu before the Election Tribunal. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition and set aside the election of the petitioner as Chairman. That order of the Election Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner before this Court. By the judgment and order dated 01.10.2015 passed in AO No. 449 of 2014, Harish Chandra Singh Aithani Vs. Govind Singh Danu and other, this Court set aside the order of the Election Tribunal and the petitioner was declared successful to the post of Chairman. The respondent no.7 unsuccessfully challenged the order of this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

(ii) The respondent no.7 Govind Singh Danu made a complaint about functioning of the petitioner as Chairman. On 21.09.2017, the respondent no.6 Sher Singh Gariya, Ex Member of the Legislative Assembly forwarded the complaint of the respondent no.7 Govind Singh Danu to the Chief Minister for taking action against the petitioner. On this communication of the respondent no.6 Govind Singh Gariya, the Chief Minister noted that “matter is very serious, action should be taken by ensuring that the entire matter is investigated within a month.”

(iii) On 29.11.2017, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Uttarakhand conveyed the direction of the Chief Minister to the District Magistrate, Bageshwar for conducting preliminary enquiry within a week.

(iv) The respondent no.4, the District Magistrate, Bageshwar (“the District Magistrate”) constituted an Inquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional District Magistrate, Bageshwar. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report, which was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Bageshwar on 14.02.2018 to the Principal Secretary, State of Uttarakhand.

(v) Final inquiry was thereafter entrusted to the Commissioner.

(vi) The Commissioner, on 22.06.2018 forwarded the charge sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner on 10.07.2018 filed his response to the charges levelled against him.

(vii) On 18.10.2018, the Commissioner submitted the inquiry report to the Principal Secretary, State of Uttarakhand.

(viii) On 16.02.2022, a show cause notice was issued by the State Government to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 18.08.2022.

(ix) On 28.04.2023, the impugned order has been passed.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the action that has been initiated against the petitioner is not in accordance with law because enquiry against Chairman could have been conducted only in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Jila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukshs, Up-Pramukhs, Adyakshas and Up-adyakshas) Rules, 1997 (“the 1997 Rules”). Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules provides for a pro