Partly allowed

Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2023WRIC/1788/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging suspension of Gram Pradhan's financial and administrative powers. Court relied on Full Bench precedent holding inquiry report by SDM did not qualify under Enquiry Rules. Set aside order for lack of specific irregularity findings. Directed District Magistrate to conclude inquiry expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside suspension directed; inquiry to conclude within three months from date of order.

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1788 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Tripathi,Subodh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Staterespondents.

¶6

The object of Gram Panchayat is very important part of administration hierarchy in India. Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was enacted to establish and develop local self government in rural areas of Uttar Pradesh and to make better provisions for village administration and development.

¶7

Section 15 of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 provides various functions of Gram Panchayat which also includes improving breed of cattle, poultry and other life stocks. State of U.P. has framed a scheme for protection of cow progeny to develop Gaushala in every village. The Scheme provides procedure for its management which includes financial management also. It cannot be denied that petitioner being a Gram Pradhan has responsibility for proper welfare of Gaushala as the villagers are also beneficiaries of outcome of welfare of cow progeny. The scheme also provides procedure for proper maintenance of Gaushala. Various measures were provided for safeguard of cows progeny, including their tagging.

¶8

In the present case, it appears that some video was viral on various Social Media wherein cow progeny were subjected to cruelty and, therefore, an inquiry was initiated and inspection of Gaushala of village concern was under taken and on basis of

¶9

said report and considering that irregularities were committed by Gram Pradhan i.e. petitioner, his financial and administrative powers were suspended till conclusion of inquiry.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner refers the reply submitted by Gram Pradhan and its consideration by District Magistrate in impugned order dated 30.12.2022 that some Geotag found nearby the Gaushala which was alleged to be of tagged cows of Gaushala in question but those numbers were different from details mentioned in register in Gaushala for this purpose.

¶11

Learned counsel further submits that District Magistrate has expressed doubt on video and has observed that its veracity could be verified only after its proper technical verification, however, District Magistrate proceed further to suspend the financial and administrative powers of petitioner without returning any specific findings that he has committed any financial irregularity or any other irregularity.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel for State submits that on the basis of inquiry, it was revealed that petitioner, the Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha has not taken proper care for maintenance of Gaushala and as such petitioner was failed to discharge his duties properly. Learned counsel further submits that still inquiry has to be concluded, therefore, no prejudiced is caused to petitioner and this Court may please to pass an order for expeditious conclusion of inquiry.

¶13

Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

¶14

A Full Bench of this Court in case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another, 2010(10) ADJ 1(FB) has dealt with suspension of financial and executive powers of Gram Pradhan and has noticed that decision for cessation of financial and

¶15

administrative powers will prejudice the powers of elected person, therefore, procedure prescribed should be strictly followed i.e. inquiry conducted by an inquiry officer has to be by a person who would fall under category of inquiry officer as described in U.P . Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UpPradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 i.e. an officer of District Level or an officer whether by District Magistrate and, therefore, any other inquiry would fall under 'otherwise' which may not be a basis to exercise the powers provided under the proviso of 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, for that, conclusion of Vivekanand Yadav (supra) would be relevant that " In our opinion the word 'otherwise' in rule 5 includes and the DM can rely upon the following reports only to cease financial and administrative power and direct the final enquiry:

¶16

A report of a person who is also defined as an enquiry officer under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules-irrespective of whether he was directed by the DM to conduct the preliminary inquiry or not;

¶17

A preliminary enquiry report conducted by the DM himself. "

¶18

In the present case, inquiry report submitted by S.D.M. would fall under an inquiry being otherwise, therefore, it cannot be a basis to exercise the proviso under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 for suspending financial and administrative powers of Gram Pradhan, otherwise also there is merit in argument for learned counsel for petitioner that reasons given in impugned order are not sufficient to pass impugned order for suspending the financial and administrative powers of Gram Pradhan as there is no specific finding even prima facie about nature of financial or any other irregularity.

¶19

Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, however, District

¶20

Magistrate can proceed with inquiry initiated under the provisions of 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. At this stage counsel for petitioner submits that the reply will be submitted within a period of three weeks from today as such this writ petition is disposed of with direction thereafter the District Magistrate will conclude the inquiry expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.2.2023 P. Pandey

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. 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

Pradeep Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. Pyare Lal Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Smt. Sarita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramji Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Satab Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others