Disposed

Rajesh Dubey v. State of U P and 8 Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023WRIC/40166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the State Government to take action on financial irregularities discovered in an inquiry against a former Block Pramukh, the Court disposed of the petition after the concerned authority filed an affidavit confirming that an FIR was directed to be lodged against the petitioner and departmental proceedings were recommended.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajesh Dubey Vs State of U P and 8 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40166 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rajesh Dubey Respondent :- State Of U P And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Achyut Jee Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Himanshu Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶5

The present writ petition is preferred for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 i.e. Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Lucknow to take appropriate action as per provisions prescribed in U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Up-Adhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 in response of the letter dated 11.07.2022 sent to him by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Chief Development Officer, Ballia and further an alternative prayer has been made for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Ballia and Chief Development Officer, Ballia to initiate criminal proceedings against the Block Pramukh, Block Bansdih, Ballia alongwith other related officers/employees, who were found to have committed the said financial irregularities, by lodging first information report against them.

¶6

It appears from the record that the petitioner had filed a complaint on 19.7.2021 before the District Magistrate, Ballia regarding misappropriation of Government money by Sushil Kumar Singh, Block Pramukh, Kshetriya Pachayat, Bansdih, Ballia, U.P. (respondent no.9). On the said complaint an inquiry was instituted by District Magistrate, Ballia, by order dated 27.8.2021. In response of the aforesaid order, the District Development Officer, Ballia, who was the Chairperson of the Inquiry Committee, fixed a date on 17.9.2021 for initiation of enquiry and verification of records. However, on that date, the said exercise could not be carried out for certain reasons. On the same date i.e. 17.9.2021, the District Development Officer, Ballia issued an order mentioning that as and when next date is fixed, it will be intimated to the parties. Once no date has been fixed for making spot inspection and to verify the records then the petitioner had approached this Court by preferring Writ C No.33873 of 2021 (Rajesh Dubey vs. State of UP and 6 others)

¶7

and a coordinate Bench of this Court had proceeded to dispose of the writ petition on 07.2.2022 with following observations:-

¶8

"In our opinion, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending, as the grievance of the petitioner can appropriately be redressed by District Magistrate, Ballia on whose direction inquiry is being held.

¶9

We accordingly permit the petitioner to approach respondent no. 2 with his grievance by filing representation along with a true attested copy of the instant order. On receipt of representation, District Magistrate, Ballia will find out the reason why inquiry is not proceeding and shall take remedial steps as may be necessary."

¶10

In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 07.2.2022, the petitioner has made a representation before the District Magistrate, Ballia. On 06.6.2022 the petitioner has also moved an application under Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the District Development Officer, Ballia for providing the enquiry report conducted against the respondent no.9 regarding financial irregularities committed by him during the period 2016 to 2021. Vide his letter/order dated 08.6.2022 the District Development Officer, Ballia has provided a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, wherein it was found that the respondent no.9 has committed financial irregularities of Rs.15,77,550/-. Again the petitioner moved a representation before the respondent no.3 on 08.7.2022 for taking appropriate action against the respondent no.9 and other persons, who were found to have committed financial irregularities. Consequently, the Chief Development Officer vide letter dated 11.5.2022 has directed to lodge first information report against the then Block Pramukh, Block Bansdih, Ballia and other concerned officers/employees but despite his direction, no FIR has been lodged in the matter. Thereafter, the Chief Development Officer vide his letter dated 11.7.2022 has sought permission from the Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Department of U.P. Lucknow to carry out further proceedings against the respondent no.9. The petitioner has therefore prayed for a mandamus commanding District Development Officer, Ballia (respondent no. 3) to complete the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Kshetriya Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961.

¶11

Initially, the matter was taken up on 16.2.2023 and this Court had proceeded to pass following order:-

¶12

"Heard Sri Achyut Jee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.C. Upadhyaya, learned State Law Officer on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶13

¶14

to him by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Chief Development Officer, Ballia and further an alternative prayer has been made for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Ballia and Chief Development Officer, Ballia to initiate criminal proceedings against the Block Pramukh, Block Bansdih, Ballia alongwith other related officers/employees who were found to have committed the said financial irregularities by lodging first information report against them.

¶15

When the matter is taken up, Sri S.C. Upadhyaya, learned State Law Officer placed the detailed instruction dated 30.01.2023 sent by the District Panchayatraj Officer, Ballia, which is taken on record.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that as per the inquiry report, the Block Pramukh, Block Bansdih, Ballia had committed financial irregularities amounting to Rs. 15,77,500/- and misused the Government fund which caused huge loss to the Government. On the basis of inquiry, the Chief Development Officer vide his letter dated 11.07.2022 has directed for lodging an F.I.R. against the Block Pramukh including other officials. Consequently, he sought permission from the Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Lucknow to carry further proceedings against the Block Pramukh and other officials.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that even though the said letter was sent way back on 11.07.2022 but till date the State Government has not taken any decision on the said letter.

¶18

Sri S.C. Upadhyaya, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that the Chief Development Officer, Ballia has already sent letter on 11.07.2022 to the Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Lucknow for further direction on the inquiry. He submits that some reasonable time may be accorded so that requisite instructions may be obtained from the State Government.

¶19

We have occasion to peruse the instruction dated 30.01.2023. At this stage, we do not want to comment on the said instruction but it is sorry state of affair on behalf of the respondents, only the District Panchayatraj Officer, Ballia has send the instruction and till date inspite of notice to the State Government, Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Lucknow has not sent any instruction in the matter.

¶20

We do not appreciate such practice where the matter is pending consideration before the State Government and the officer has no courtesy to send instruction to the Court.

¶21

On the request of Sri S.C. Upadhyaya, learned State Law Officer, the case is adjourned.

¶22

Let the requisite instruction may be obtained from the end of second respondent within a week.

¶23

Put up this matter on 01.03.2023 as fresh."

¶24

Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 22.3.2022 and on the said date the Court had directed the respondent no.2 to file his personal affidavit in compliance of the order dated 16.02.2023

¶25

within a week, failing which he was directed to be personally present before the Court to show cause for non-compliance of the order and the matter was directed to be listed on 31.3.2023. Again the matter was listed on 31.3.2023 and a coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:-

¶26

"Heard Shri Achyut Jee, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶27

On 16.02.2023, this Court passed a detailed order and directed the respondent No.2 to provide instructions. Again on 1.3.2023, on the request of the learned Standing Counsel, the case was adjourned for 22.03.2023. On 22.03.2023, since the learned Standing Counsel again sought adjournment, therefore, on his request, the case was adjourned directing the respondent no.2 to file a counter affidavit by means of his personal affidavit in compliance of the order dated 16.02.2023 within a week, failing which, he shall remain personally present before this Court to show cause for non compliance of the order.

¶28

Today, learned Standing Counsel states that the respondent no.2 has not contacted although communication of the order date 22.02.2023 was made. Neither counter affidavit has been filed nor respondent no.2 is personally present before this Court.

¶29

We are noticing that it is gradually becoming a practice of the Officers of the State Government that neither they provide instructions to learned Standing Counsel nor file counter affidavit despite specific order nor they are appearing before the Court in the event of non compliance of conditional orders.

¶30

Faced with the situation, we find it a fit case to issue a bailable warrant against the respondent no. 2 to ensure his presence before this Court on 4.04.2023 at 10 A.M.

¶31

Let a bailable warrant be issued against respondent no.2.

¶32

Necessary steps shall be taken immediately by the Registrar General in this regard.

¶33

List/put this case as a fresh on 4.04.2023 at 10 A.M."

¶34

In compliance of the order dated 31.03.2023, personal affidavit of Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of UP, Lucknow is filed today and the same is taken on record. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, presently posted as Additional Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow is present before this Court.

¶35

Learned Additional Advocate General in support of his submissions submits that present matter relates to the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P. The deponent is currently posted as Agriculture Production Commissioner, Infrastructure & Industrial Development

¶36

Commissioner; Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Horticulture & Food Processing. He had taken over the charge as Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Department of Panchayati Raj on 18.02.2020. He has not received the communication of orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 16.2.2023, 01.03.2023, 22.03.2023 and 31.03.2023 on official emails of the department from the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad. He has placed reliance upon paragraph 22 of the personal affidavit filed by Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, wherein it is averred that on receiving the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by this Court, the authority has passed the following order on 1.04.2023:

¶37

"(i) The reference made by the Chief Development Officer vide letter dated 11.07.2022 seeking permission of Government for action against the ex-Block Pramukh to take appropriate action as per provisions prescribed in rules and sections of Kshetra Panchayat and Zila panchayat Act 1961 and Rules 1997 is not correct. The section-3 and 4 of Rules of 1997 are applicable to sitting member/Block pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat and the present case is as much as admittedly complaint has been made against Ex-Block Pramukh and not sitting one.

¶38

(ii) It is pertinent to mention here that the irregular payment of Rs. 1577500/- on inquiry into the allegations that District administration is competent to inquire serious irregularities committed by former block Pramukh and erring officers and employees whereas there is no requirement of directives for inquiry and for further action into such matters from the State Government.

¶39

(iii) Te instant matter falls under category of serious financial irregularities. The deponent has directed District Magistrate, Ballia vide Government order No. 781/33-2-2023 dated 01.04.2023 for lodging First Information Report against Ex-Block Pramukh for irregular payment of amount Rs. 1577500/- as well as appropriate action has to be taken against the then Block Development Officer, (then) Gram Panchayat Adhikari/Gram Vikas Adhikari and concerned accountant. A true copy of the order dated 1.4.2023 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 4.

¶40

(iv) To take appropriate action against Block Development Officers who are involved in financial irregularities, have been recommended for suspension and initiate departmental proceeding vide letter No. 782/33-22023, dated 01.04.2023 to Additional chief Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of U.P. A true copy of the order dated 1.04.2023 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 5."

¶41

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that no communication of the Nodal Officer for Court fees of the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P. has been given from the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad. The deponent has received the communication order dated 31.03.2023 from the office of Chief Development Officer, Ballia on 01.04.2023 on whatsapp of

¶42

Joint Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P. The mistake is bona-fide and once it has been brought to the notice that remedial action has also been taken by the deponent. It is further prayed that any inconvenience caused to the Court, may be pardoned and in this regard, an unconditional apology has also been tendered.

¶43

Considering the facts and circumstances and categorical stand taken by the deponent in his personal affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that cause for filing the writ petition no more survives.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

Presence of Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Additional Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, U.P., Lucknow is dispensed with.

¶46

Order Date :- 4.4.2023 A. Mandhani

¶47

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Dubey v. State of U P and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajesh Dubey v. State of U P and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharm Veer Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

National Medical Ignou Community College Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dulari and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others