Ameer Alam vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—On 18.9.2014, an order was passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, by which the financial powers of the petitioner-Gram Pradhan, were seized under the provisio of section 95 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act pending final inquiry which was directed to be concluded within one month from that day. Against the said order, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2422 of 2014 (M/S), in which the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the argument that for the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), the District Magistrate has no power to invoke the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and inquiry, if any, is permissible only under the MGNREGA. Learned Single Judge, vide order dated 12.12.2014, directed the District Magistrate, Haridwar to file his personal affidavit within a period of one week, stating therein the stage of the final inquiry. Order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge is being reproduced below:

"Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 18.9.2014, financial powers of the petitioner/Gram Pradhan, herein, were seized under proviso of section 95 of U.P. panchayat Raj Act pending final inquiry which was directed to be concluded within one month from 18.9.2014; he further contends that till day no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, by the Inquiry Officer nor inquiry has been commenced as yet, therefore, impugned order dated 18.9.2014 should be quashed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that for the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). Learned Collector has absolutely no power to invoke the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and inquiry, if any, is permissible only under the MGNREGA.

Respondent No. 2 shall file his personal affidavit within a week stating therein the stage of the final inquiry, failing which he shall remain present in person before this Court on 22.12.2014."

The said writ petition was heard on 6.1.2015 in which the Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted supplementary counter affidavit of the In-Charge District Magistrate, Haridwar, annexing therein the copies of the Inquiry Report as well as the Order dated 2.1.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar. At that time, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh, challenging the Inquiry Report as well as the Order dated 2.1.2015. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 36 of 2015 (M/S) was filed by the petitioner. Same was heard and was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 8.1.2015. The learned Single Judge directed that the petitioner shall be issued show cause notice before taking any action on the Inquiry Report and the petitioner shall be at liberty to place all the defence and grounds to challenge the jurisdiction of the Inquiry Officer as well as the Inquiry Report. The District Magistrate was directed to expedite the matter and to take final decision on the Inquiry Report in accordance with law at the earliest, in any case, within ninety days. Against the order dated 8.1.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, this Special Appeal has been filed.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in fact, the alleged irregularities have been committed by the appellant under MGNREGA and the District Magistrate has no power to invoke the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and inquiry, if any, is permissible only under the MGNREGA.

At this, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that though the irregularities have been committed by the appellant were under the MGNREGA, but the duties conferred to the Gram Pradhan were under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and action under section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act has been taken against him.

Learned Counsel for the appellant then pointed out the order dated 2.1.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, by which the appellant has been asked to deposit amount of Rs. 32,606/-. In the said order, it is written by the District Magistrate that in case the said amount is deposited by the appellant, his case for reinstatement on the post of Gram Pradhan shall be considered as per law.

Considering the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, the appellant is permitted to deposit the said amount within one week from today. In case the said amount is deposited by the appellant within the stipulated period, the District Magistrate shall consider the case of the appellant for the reinstatement on the post of Gram Pradhan. The District Magistrate, while considering the reinstatement of the appellant on the post of Gram Pradhan, should also consider the Inquiry Report and shall pass the final order under the relevant statute, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to whether the provisions of MGNREGA or the U.P. Panchayat Raj will be applicable to the facts of the instant case. The District Magistrate shall take final decision in the matter independently, without being influenced by the observations made in this order.

With the observation made above, the Special Appeal stands disposed of. Stay application also stands disposed of. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties, within 48 hours, on payment of usual charges.