Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(UT) 2960
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Ravindra Maithani, J
Ranjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2175 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Mr. Vikas Bahuguna
For the Respondents: Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Mr. C.S. Rawat
Mandatory compliance with procedural laws in administrative actions ensures legitimacy; non-compliance renders such actions invalid.
Headnote:(A) Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 - Section 138(4) - Complaint and verification procedures under the 1997 Rules - Complaint filed was not in conformity with mandatory provisions of Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules; thus, impugned suspension order and proceedings were quashed as illegal. (Paras 10, 35, 36)
(B) Legal Principles - Compliance with procedural rules is imperative for the validity of administrative actions against elected officials. Non-compliance with mandatory provisions renders actions born of such irregularities illegal. (Paras 13, 34)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the suspension under Section 138(4) of the Act following a complaint alleging misconduct. A Committee was constituted for inquiries against him, leading to suspension based on alleged non-compliance with the 1997 Rules.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that all proceedings based on a defectively filed complaint are invalid; the petitioner's suspension was unjustified due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Issues: The key issue was whether the complaint had complied with the mandatory procedures set out in Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules, affecting the legitimacy of the subsequent actions.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized that failure to comply with statutory requirements in the process of suspension invalidates the action taken; strict adherence to the law is necessary for the validity of removal proceedings against elected representatives.
Result: The impugned order dated 24.08.2022 as well as the complaint dated 10.06.2022 is quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint procedures affect legitimacy of administrative actions. (Para 2 , 4 , 8) |
| 2. importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements during inquiries. (Para 9 , 10 , 15) |
| 3. illegality of actions stems from non-compliance with statutory frameworks. (Para 19 , 34 , 36) |
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble 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:-
(i) The petitioner was elected Pramukh, Block Development Committee, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.
(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 does not give rise to any cause of action to the petitioner.
(v) On 11.05.2022, another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged both the notices dated 12.4.2022 and 11.5.2022 by filing two separate writ petitions i.e. WP (M/S) No. 1153 of 2022 and WP (M/S) No. 1163 of 2022 (“the petitions”).
(vi) The petitions were taken up for hearing on 08.06.2022 and the Court passed an interim order by which the operation of the impugned show cause notices was kept in abeyance till the next date of listing.
(vii) On 18.06.2022, the Director, Panchayati Raj, Uttarakhand dropped the proceedings on the notices impugned in the petitions, finding that the notices were not in conformity with the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas), Enquiry Rules, 1997 (“the 1997 Rules”).
(viii) On 23.08.2022, the petitions were dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, in view of the fact that the Government had already withdrawn the notices.
(ix) Another complaint dated 10.06.2022 was addressed to the Secretary, Panchayati Raj by a Chandra Shekhar Mudela. On which the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, Panchayati Raj Section on 21.06.2022 ordered a preliminary inquiry.
(x) On 08.07.2022, the Additional District Magistrate/Inquiry Officer, Udham Singh Nagar submitted an inquiry report pursuant to the complaint of Chandra Shekhar Mudela. In the inquiry report, it was concluded that the petitioner as Block Pramukh had committed gross violation in discharge of his duties. The inquiry report was forwarded to the Joint Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Section-II, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
(xi) On 24.08.2022, the impugned order was passed, by which, under Section 138 (4) of the Act, the petitioner was suspended till conclusion of the final inquiry.
3. The order dated 24.08.2022 has been put to challenge.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the complaint of Chandra Shekhar Mudela is not in conformity with Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules; the complaint is not verified as required under Rule 3(3) of the 1997 Rules. Therefore, according to the petitioner, non-conformity of the complaint with Rule 3(3) of the 1997 Rules invokes the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the 1997 Rules and such a complaint could not have been entertained.
5. In its counter affidavit, it is the case of the State that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with Section 138 of the Act read with the
