The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the District Magistrate under U.P. Panchayat Raj Enquiry Rules, 1997, holding that the procedure was defective as the petitioner's reply was not considered.
Order passed by District Magistrate dated 2.6.2020 quashed; petitioner's powers restored.
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. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10604 of 2020
Petitioner :- Israr Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,Rohit Nandan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 6.7.2020:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that enquiry conducted by the officer concerned is not in accordance with Rule 6 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UpPradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 inasmuch as neither the substance of implication and a copy of the complaint has been served upon the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer nor the documents have been supplied and there is complete noncompliance of requirement contained in Rule 6 of the Enquiry Rules, vitiating the order impugned.
Learned standing counsel may obtain instruction within ten days.
Post as fresh, once again, on 16.7.2020."
Learned Standing Counsel states that though letters have been sent but no response has yet been received from the office concerned.
Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, no further opportunity is required to be granted to the learned Standing Counsel and the writ petition is being disposed of, at this stage itself.
Perusal of the record would go to show that regular enquiry in the matter was initiated against the petitioner which culminated in submission of an enquiry report dated 2.5.2018. The enquiry officer found that various development work was completed in most of the projects but the Pradhan had undertaken fresh work without obtaining any approval from the competent authority. A final notice thereafter was issued to petitioner on 14.1.2019. This notice also records that the enquiry officer found the Pradhan to have completed all development work and no illegality has been found in that regard. The only omission on part of the petitioner is that he had not obtained permission for certain work. This observation apparently was with regard to installation of certain Hand Pumps. The petitioner has given reply to this notice stating that required approval from the competent authority was already obtained and was also
available on record but as none had demanded such details, therefore, the details were not given earlier. Relevant records have been annexed with the reply. It is thereafter that the order impugned has been passed. This order holds the petitioner responsible for not obtaining permission of competent authority before installing Hand Pumps in the year 2016-2017.
A perusal of the record would go to show that the reply submitted by petitioner to the final notice has not been taken note of by the District Magistrate before passing the order impugned. Even otherwise it is found that neither Rule 6 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 has been complied with, nor the reply submitted by petitioner has been considered. The Development Work undertaken by the petitioner in different years otherwise has been found to be illegal. This Court, therefore, finds substance in the contention advanced on behalf of petitioner that the reply submitted by petitioner to the notice has not been dealt with and the procedure contemplated for holding of regular enquiry in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997 has also not been adhered to. None-consideration of petitioner's reply to the notice clearly vitiates the order impugned.
Writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. Order passed by the District Magistrate, Etah, dated 2.6.2020 stands quashed. It would be open for the District Magistrate to proceed afresh, in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made above. The financial and administrative powers of petitioner, however, shall stand restored. In the facts and circumstances, no order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.7.2020 Anil
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order should be quashed for failure to comply with the enquiry procedure under Rule 6 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997.
Whether the District Magistrate considered the petitioner's reply to the final notice before passing the order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Israr Khan
State Of U.P
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
