Partly allowed

Mobeen Khatoon v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2019WRIC/43117/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order seizing the petitioner's financial and administrative powers because the underlying preliminary enquiry was conducted by an officer not defined as an Enquiry Officer under the 1997 Rules. The Court remanded the matter to appoint a District Level Officer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to District Magistrate to appoint a District Level Officer as enquiry officer under the 1997 Rules.

Mobeen Khatoon Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43117 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mobeen Khatoon Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar,Sanjai Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of all the respondents and Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, who appears for the Caveator one Makkhan Lal son of Pyare Lal who was the complainant.

¶6

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Gram Pradhan of village Gram Panchayat Kurri, Block Amariya, District Pilibhit. By the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Pilibhit, in exercise of power under Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been seized. The order impugned has been passed on the basis of preliminary enquiry report submitted by Committee headed by the Block Development Officer, Amariya, with a Technical Assistant and Assistant Development Officer, (I.S.B.). These three officers are not District Level Officer and their could not have been made the basis of the order impugned. The definition of "Enquiry Officer under Rule 2 (c) of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UpPradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997" has been referred to.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2013 (1) ADJ 228, where this Court after placing a reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vivekanad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2011 (1 )Allahabad

¶8

Law Journal 694 has observed that even for conduct of preliminary enquiry the Enquiry Officer should be such person who falls within the definition of Enquiry Officer in Rule 2(c) of the Rules 1997. The preliminary enquiry report should be submitted by a District Level Officer.

¶9

This Court finds substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

¶10

The learned counsel for the Caveator, Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava has objected to the hearing of the petitioner without the complainant being impleaded as a party.

¶11

This Court is of the considered opinion that a complainant has no locus standi to be heard.

¶12

The impugned order is set aside.

¶13

The matter and remanded to the District Magistrate to appoint a District Level Officer as an enquiry officer as provided under the Rules of 1997 and after preliminary enquiry report is received appropriate orders may be passed by him with regard to the petitioner.

¶14

It is clarified that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the order impugned. It has been set aside only on the ground that enquiry conducted by a committee headed by the Block Development Officer who is admittedly not a District Level Officer, was vitiated.

¶15

This writ petition is partly allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.1.2019 Md Faisal

Mobeen Khatoon v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mobeen Khatoon v. State of U P and 4 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

Smt. Rameshwari Yadav Vs the General Manger P.N.B. H.R.D.Division N.Delhi and4 Ors.

Prabal Pratap Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Sanjiv Kumar Vs Ghaziabad Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.Thru Its Secy. and Ors.

Kapileshwar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manish Verma Vs Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Office, Mumbai, and 4 Others

Subhash Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others