Disposed

Smt. Raj Rani v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024/11693/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged unauthorized seizure of powers due to non-compliant inquiry committee composition. Court noted District Excise Officer was the valid inquiry officer with Assistant Engineer providing only technical assistance, upholding the report. However, court directed District Magistrate to reform the post-inquiry committee if it included the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Magistrate to constitute a three-member committee in accordance with law within three weeks if the existing committee is not compliant.

Smt. Raj Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2672

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11693 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Raj Rani

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Singh,Surya Kant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nitin Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for the intervenor.

¶8

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶9

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for following main reliefs:

¶10

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 2 contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

¶11

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned consequential order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 2 contained as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition.

¶12

(iii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the function of the petitioner as Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Shankarpur, Block Sirsiya, District Shrawasti, in pursuance of the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 contained as Annexur No. 1 to the writ petition."

¶13

There is consensus at the bar that the facts of the case have already been set forth in details in order dated 03.01.2024.

¶14

For the sake of convenience the order dated 03.04.2024 is reproduced below:

¶15

"1. Heard.

¶16

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by

¶17

means of the order impugned dated 22.11.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, upon a preliminary inquiry report having been submitted and the charges having been found prima facie approved, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, a Gram Pradhan have been seized in view of the provisions contained in Section 95 (1) (g) of the Uttar Pradesh Raj Panchayat Act, 1947.

¶18

3. The argument is that the District Magistrate had constituted a two members inquiry committee comprising of (a) Assistant Engineer & (b) District Excise Officer who have submitted the inquiry report dated 23.09.2022, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition.

¶19

4. Placing reliance on the Government order dated 14.08.2019, a copy of which is annexure 17 to the writ petition as well as the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 31975 (MS) of 2019 Inre; Smt. Agana Devi Vs. State of U.P and Ors decided on 25.11.2019, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition it is contended that the Assistant Engineer does not fall within a ambit of being a Gazetted Officer and as such, any inquiry report which has been submitted by the District Excise Officer along with the Assistant Engineer would run foul to the specific provisions contained in Rule 2 (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1997") as well as the Government order dated 14.08.2019 which provides for appointment of the inquiry officer and consequently, the consequential action taken of cessation of the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner by means of the order impugned dated 22.11.2023 would be patently vitiated in the eyes of law.

¶20

5. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Nitin Srivastava, Advocate who has filed his caveat on behalf of the complainant and whom the Court permits to argue as a intervenor points out that the Assistant Engineer had only been nominated to assist the inquiry officer who was the District Excise Officer and the Assistant Engineer was not operating as an inquiry officer. It is further contended that the Government order dated 14.08.2019 itself provides that apart from the list of the gazetted officers as indicated in the said Government order, the District Magistrate has been empowered to indicate the name of District Level Officer as an inquiry officer in terms of

¶21

Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1997 and consequently, there is no error in the said inquiry report.

¶22

6. However, learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted three days time to seek specific instructions in this regard.

¶23

7. List this case in the next week as fresh. "

¶24

Today Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions sent by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Shravasti dated 06.01.2024 argues that is not the case that the Assistant Engineer had been appointed as an inquiry officer rather through an order dated 30.06.2022 initially the District Excise Officer, Shravasti was appointed as an inquiry officer and the Assistant Engineer of Rural Engineering Services, Sirsiya was required to provide technical assistance. Subsequent thereto through an order dated 03.08.2012 the order dated 30.06.2022 had been modified to the extent that instead of technical assistance being provided by the Junior Engineer the Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Sirsiya is being required to provide technical assistance.

¶25

Placing reliance on Rule 2(c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up Pradhan and Member) Inquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1997) the arguments of Shri Sanjay Sarin is that the inquiry officer should be a district level officer and in the instant case admittedly the District Excise Officer is an officer of district level and the Assistant Engineer now nominated is only to provide technical assistance as such the order of appointment of inquiry officer would not run foul to either the provisions of Rule 2(c) of the Rules 1997 or the government order dated 14.08.2019, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the petition as considered by this Court in the case of Santosh Kumer vs State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No. 10550 (MS) of 2019

¶26

decided on 28.05.2019 , a copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid more particularly when Rule 2(c) of the Rules 1997 only provides for appointment of a district level inquiry officer and admittedly the District Excise Officer who is a district level officer had been appointed as an inquiry officer and the Assistant Engineer was not appointed as an inquiry officer rather was only required to give technical assistance to the district level officer i.e. the District Excise Officer consequently no error is found in the report of the inquiry officer on the basis of which the order impugned dated 22.11.2023 per which the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been seized.

¶28

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the three members committee which has been constituted by the District Magistrate in terms of the order impugned also comprises of the complainant and consequently there cannot be any occasion of the complainant himself to comprise of the said three member committee to carry out the functions of the Gram Pradhan.

¶29

Considering the aforesaid, the District Magistrate, Shravasti / respondent no. 2 is required to consider this aspect of matter and if the three members committee has not been constituted in accordance with law then the District Magistrate shall constitute another three members committee in accordance with law and relevant rules which order would be passed within a period of three weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶32

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Raj Rani v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Raj Rani v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. 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

Vinod Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others

Fakire Vs District Magistrate/Collector, Lko. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

M/S Vani Systems Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Managing Director Sri Rajiv Shukla Vs Employee State Insurance Corporation Thru. Deputy Director Sub Regional Office,Esic Lko. and 2 Ors.

Kamal Kumar S/O Sri Ram Asrey and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary F and R Lucknow and Ors.

Subedar Khan Vs Smt. Kamla Sharma and Ors.