Shiv Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.07.2025 as well as 07.08.2025, whereby the inquiry officer has been changed in pursuance of a complaint made against the petitioner.

¶12

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that out of the three members appointed in the committee for preliminary inquiry, the two are incompetent and thus, the present petition has been filed.

¶13

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the directions given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2010(10) ADJ(1) in para 107 to the following effect:

¶14

"107. Our conclusions are as follows:

¶15

(a) The DM may ask the preliminary enquiry to be conducted by any officer defined under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules on a complaint or a report under rule 3 or any other material or information. He has suo motu powers as well to order a preliminary enquiry;

¶16

(b) A pradhan has no right to object that complaint or report is not in accordance with rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules;

¶17

WRIC No. 8853 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

(c) A pradhan is neither entitled to be associated in the preliminary enquiry nor is entitled to the copy of the preliminary report. However, before an order ceasing the financial and administrative power is passed, his explanation or point of view or the version to the charges should be obtained and considered;

¶20

(d) In the first and the third WPs, the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of preliminary report after obtaining and considering the explanation of the pradhan. The impugned orders in these WPs cannot be faulted on this ground;

¶21

(e) 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:

¶22

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;

¶23

A preliminary enquiry report conducted by the DM himself.

¶24

(f) In the third writ petition, the report was submitted by the DPRO, who is defined as an enquiry officer under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules. The impugned order cannot be faulted on the ground that the DPRO was not asked by the DM to conduct the preliminary enquiry;

¶25

However, it is open to the petitioners in the first and third WPs to raise other points before the appropriate bench."

¶26

In view thereof, the petitioner has no right. However, the petitioner places reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Shyam Wati Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 CJ (All) 2168, specifically on para Nos.52 and 53, which are quoted herein-below:-

¶27

" 52. A larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of three Hon'ble Judges, in the case of Bhav Nagar University Vs. Pali Tana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & others; (2003) 2 SCC 111 has held that when a statutory authority required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme

¶28

WRIC No. 8853 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

Court in paragraph 40 has held as under:

¶31

"It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authority while acting under the said Act are only creator of Statute. They must act within the four-corners thereof."

¶32

In the back-drop of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no legal sanctity could at all be attached to the constitution of three members Committee and any report submitted by such Committee could not be made the basis for action under Rule 5 of the Enquiry Rules for ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Pradhan.

¶33

53. Thus, the arguments raised on behalf of the opposite party no. 7 to the effect that since the District Panchayat Raj Officer was one of the three Members Committee, the report should be treated as a report under Rule 4 deserve nothing, but a rejection."

¶34

Even if the said observations as relied upon are taken into consideration, the fact remains that the rights of the petitioner agitating at the stage of preliminary inquiry are barred by virtue of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav (supra) .

¶35

In view thereof, no interference is called for at this stage.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶37

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take such grounds, as may be available, in case, any order is passed against the petitioner.

¶38

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶39

September 15, 2025 Ashutosh

¶40

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramapati Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 4 Others

U.P. Projects Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Lko. Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

M/S Mahadev Construction Company Thru. Authorized Representative Shri Madaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner State Tax U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Ms.Shiwanjali Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure/Industrial Development and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Badlu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Dist. Majestrate Barabanki Dist. Barabanki and 3 Others