Disposed

Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj,Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2024/2402/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding the restoration of the petitioner's Gram Pradhan powers seized pending inquiry, the Court dismissed the claim that delay vitiated the inquiry. Noting the inquiry concluded in early 2024, the Court directed the respondents to pass a final order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pass a final order on the closed inquiry within two weeks from today.

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25507

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2402 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ankit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj,Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Singh Rana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate to restore the financial and administrative power of the petitioner who is Gram Pradhan.

¶8

The contention is that initially the financial and administrative power of the petitioner had been seized vide the order dated 30.12.2022. Upon a challenge being raised this Court vide the order dated 09.02.2023 passed in Writ C No. 668 of 2023 in re: Ankit Kumar vs State of U.P. and others, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, stayed the said order however leaving it open to the respondents to conclude the inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶9

Subsequent thereto the power of the petitioner had against been seized vide the order dated 25.05.2023, a copy of which is annexure SA 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 14.03.2024 and hence the petition.

¶10

The contention is that the respondents have failed to conclude the inquiry within a period of six months consequently the inquiry would become vitiated in the eyes of law.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 8 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 to argue that the inquiry officer is required to conclude the inquiry within six months from the date of receipt of the complaint and to forward the same to the State Government with records of the said inquiry.

¶12

However, the said Rule may not detain the Court in as much, as as per the instructions of learned Standing Counsel, the final inquiry report has been submitted on 22.01.2024 and the same has been approved on 14.03.2024 by the competent authority i.e. the District Magistrate.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel further states that a final order in this

¶14

regard would be passed within 10 days from today.

¶15

Accordingly, considering that a final report has already been submitted on the complaint as lodged against the petitioner and the inquiry has already been concluded and the report has been submitted and which has been approved, as such the respondents are required to pass a final order on the basis of the said inquiry within a period of two weeks' from today.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of .

¶17

Needless to mention that it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the final order in accordance with law before the appropriate Court in appropriate proceedings.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.3.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶19

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

Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj,Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj,Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jageshwar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Its Secy.Deptt.of Home Civil Sectt. and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Aggarwal and Anr. Vs Sharad Saxena

Akanksha Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 4 Others

Kamlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

Indradev Tiwari Alias Indradev Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ravi Shankar Tiwari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Amethi and 3 Others