Remanded

Tanveer Fatma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2018WRIC/36476/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the findings of an enquiry committee. However, directing that the pending final enquiry under specific Panchayat Raj removal rules be completed within six months, the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Enquiry under Rule 5 and 6 of the Panchayat Raj Enquiry Rules, 1997 to be completed within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Tanveer Fatma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36476 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Tanveer Fatma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Tej Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶7

"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI, quashing the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by District Magistrate, Sambhal (Annexure no. 1) by which respondent no. 2.

¶8

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2/District Magistrate, Sambhal release the financial power as well as administrative power forthwith.

¶9

iii) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction in which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶10

iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The arguments are mainly on the merits of the case assailing the findings recorded by the enquiry committee. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity in the proceedings which culminated in the impugned order. However, he submits that the charges were definitely not established and the further enquiry under Rule 5 and 6 was not warranted.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel submits that in a writ jurisdiction the evaluation of charges as was done by the District Panchayat Raj Officer cannot be reevaluated and, therefore, no interference may be made.

¶13

However, keeping in mind that the final enquiry is still pending, it is being directed that the enquiry under Rule 5 and 6 of the the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, may be completed within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.11.2018 p.s.

Tanveer Fatma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanveer Fatma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phool Bee Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Bali Vs State of U P and 10 Others

Virendra Singh Vs State of U P and 9 Others

Rameshwar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Durgesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ashish Agnihotri Vs State of U P and 2 Others