The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cessation of a Pradhan's powers under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The order was held valid as it followed the procedure and allowed hearing after a prior order was quashed for violation of natural justice. The court directed expedited enquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10381 of 2020
Petitioner :- Nand Lal Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Chaubey,Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh appears for three member committee, which has been constituted in response to the proceeding under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.
The petitioner, who is elected Pradhan, is assailing the validity of the order impugned dated 15.2.2020 passed by third respondent i.e. District Magistrate, Varanasi, whereby administrative and financial power of the petitioner has been ceased under Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.
It appears from the record that earlier an order was passed on 12.9.2019 holding that Rs.1.31 lakh was syphoned off by the petitioner in collusion with the Secretary and directing an FIR to be lodged. The said order has been assailed in Writ-C No.40210 of 2019 (Nand Lal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. & Ors.) on the ground that before passing of the said order no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. In the said writ petition instructions were called and by way of instructions the opposite party has taken a stand that before passing of the said order no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner. In this backdrop, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 13.12.2019 with following observations:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.9.2019 (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.2 whereby an order has been passed holding that Rs. 1.31 lakh was syphoned off by the petitioner in collusion with the Secretary Sri Prabhu Prakash Sureka and further directions were issued for lodging a first information report. The said order was passed on 12.9.2019.
The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that prior to passing of the said order no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, specific averment in that regard has been made in paragraph 19 of the writ petition. This Court vide an order dated 6.12.2019 had instructed the standing counsel to obtain instructions as to whether any show cause notice was given to the petitioner prior to passing of the order dated 12.9.2019. Standing counsel on instructions states that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to passing of the order dated 12.9.2019.
Considering the limited submission made at the bar and the acceptance by the standing counsel, the order which is final in nature deserves to be quashed only on this ground that prior to passing of the said order no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. The order dated 12.9.2019 suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice and, thus, is accordingly quashed. The respondents will be at liberty to take or initiate fresh action that may be advised under law.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the above said order."
In response to the aforesaid order, a show cause notice was served upon the
petitioner and finally by the order impugned financial and administrative powers of the petitioner under Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act has been seized.
Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity so as to warrant any action contemplated under Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. He submits that even though some alleged inspection was carried out but the same has not been done in the presence of the petitioner and therefore entire action has been taken on the exparte enquiry report. The same cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside.
Per contra Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. He has submitted that in response to the earlier order of this Court the authority has given opportunity and only thereafter financial and administrative power has been seized. Now full fledged enquiry is contemplated and as such at this stage in the midst of the enquiry no interference is required.
Heard rival submissions and perused the record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that earlier the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 12.9.2019 passed by the respondents. The same was set aside by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition precisely on the ground of principle of natural justice. Consequently, the opportunity was given to the petitioner and thereafter order impugned has been passed strictly in consonance with the procedure contained under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and as such at this stage the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that once the enquiry officer has already been appointed as per the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (in short "the Rules"), it is expected that the said enquiry must be finalised strictly in consonance with the Rules expeditiously.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 24.6.2020 SP/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the financial and administrative power ceasing order should be quashed as it was passed in accordance with procedure and after opportunity of hearing?
Whether the enquiry must be finalised expeditiously and in consonance with the Rules?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nand Lal Jaiswal
State Of U.P.
District Magistrate, Varanasi
Three member committee
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
