Allowed

Smt. Neelam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2024/4434/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed an enquiry report and show cause notice issued against a Gram Pradhan. The Court held that the requirement to provide articles of charge, statements, and lists of documents was not met under Rule 6(3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Enquiry Rules, 1997, amounting to a deemed admission.

What did the court decide?

The enquiry report dated 15.04.2024 and show cause notice dated 27.04.2024 are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are allowed to proceed in accordance with Rules 6 and 7 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj En

Smt. Neelam Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38837

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4434 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Devi

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj, Lucknow And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Veerendra Kumar Tiwari

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Ratan Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 5. The opposite parties no. 6 and 7 impleaded in the writ petition are complainants, of whose complaint the impugned order was passed against the petitioner. There is no need to issue notice to opposite parties no. 6 and 7 as they are not necessary parties.

¶9

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of a enquiry report dated 15.04.2024 submitted by the District Inspector of School, Sultanpur and Executive Engineer, Sharda Sahayak, Division-49, Sultanpur. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of a show cause notice dated 27.04.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why she should not be removed from the office of Gram Paradhan, Gram Panchayat, Fatehpur Sangat, Vikas Khand, Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 6(3) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, U.P. Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 provides that the," The Enquiry Officer shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the person against whom he is to hold the enquiry, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations arid a list of documents and witnesses by which

¶11

each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require that person by a notice in writing, to submit within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person, and to appear before him on such day and at such time, as may be specified ."

¶12

When the case was heard on the last date on 17.05.2024, the learned Standing Counsel had obtained time to seek instructions of this point. The learned Standing Counsel has obtained written instructions from District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sultanpur, wherein merely this much has been stated that the final enquiry report does not make a mention of the documents referred to in the aforesaid Rule 6(3) having been provided to the petitioner. The District Panchayat Raj Officer has not categorically disputed the contention of the petitioner that the requisite documents as per 6(3) were not provided to the petitioner, which amounts to a deemed admission of the petitioner's contention.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed . The enquiry report dated 15.04.2024 submitted by the District Inspector of School of Sultanpur and Executive Engineering, Sharda Sahayak, Khand49, Sultanpur and show cause notice dated 27.04.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur are hereby quashed.

¶14

The opposite parties will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, U.P. Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, particularly Rules 6 and 7 thereof.

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 22.5.2024/Preeti.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Neelam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kudrat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Chitra Misra and 13 Others Vs M/S Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd. Thru. Managing Director and Another

Asheer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Badri Kumar Shrestha vs Central Bureau of Invetigation Thru. Its Superitendent of Police

Vimal Kishore and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and Others

Zuber Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.