Allowed

Sangeeta Devi v. District Magistrate and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2018WRIC/37124/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging order ceasing her powers as Gram Panchayat Pradhan without a final enquiry. Court held mandatory enquiry rules were violated and held cannot ignore mandatory statutes. Order quashed with liberty to frame issue afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.10.2018 quashed. Writ petition allowed with liberty to respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

Sangeeta Devi Vs District Magistrate and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37124 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sangeeta Devi Respondent :- District Magistrate And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Manvendra Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harish Chandra Dubey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1/District Magistrate, Mirzapur filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Lathiya Sahijani, Block Jamalpur, Tehsil Chunar, District Mizapur with all the power including financial and administrative has also been made.

¶7

By the impugned order the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been ceased in exercise of powers under Section 95 (1) (g) proviso of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and his removal from the post of Pradhan has also been recommended.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is in gross violation of the provisions of aforesaid Section as well as U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 which also reflects that no preliminary enquiry was conducted and the removal of the petitioner from the post of Pradhan has been recommended without even conducting final enquiry as provided under the aforesaid Rules. Drawing attention to page 35 of the paper book it has been submitted that in fact the petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause notice on 24.10.2018 i.e. before passing of the impugned order and the same has not been considered and it has been noticed that no reply was given. Submission therefore, is that the impugned order being in violation of the statutory provisions which are mandatory in nature is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this case in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. Sate of U.P. and others 2011 (1) AWC 488 (FB) and in the case of Usha Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 (2) AWC 1268 .

¶9

Per-contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order and submitted that the show cause notice was duly given to the petitioner to which in fact he has not submitted any reply as noticed in the impugned order and therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the order impugned herein.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.

¶11

On perusal of record and considering the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner I find that the matter is purely covered by the statutory provisions and the judgments in the cases of Vivekanand

¶12

Yadav (Supra) and Usha Devi (Smt.) (Supra) which provides that statutory provisions have to be followed and enquiry has to be conducted in the matter. On perusal of impugned order it appears that apart from ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner recommendation for his removal has also been made whereas the order nowhere reflects that any final enquiry has been conducted even if there was a preliminary enquiry. The nature of the order involved appears to be purely covered by the legal provisions and the judgments noted as above.

¶13

In such view of the matter, no fruitful purpose would be served by calling for a counter affidavit and keeping this writ petition pending.

¶14

Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is hereby quashed.

¶15

This writ petition is allowed, however, with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law.

¶16

No costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.11.2018 p.s.

Sangeeta Devi v. District Magistrate and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Devi v. District Magistrate and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veer Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Barfa Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kishan Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

smt. naseem bano Vs State of U.P. and 8 others

Shamsad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others