Devwati vs State of U.P. & Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner has sought the quashing of the order dated 13th November, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate whereby exercising powers under the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') as also the powers under The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UpPradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'') he has ceased the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner till such time as the enquiry is not completed.

The records indicate that earlier the petitioner had also approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.52684 of 2009 with the allegation that the reply submitted by him to the show cause notice dated 31st August, 2009 had not been considered by the District Magistrate while passing the order dated 11/14th September, 2009 ceasing the financial and administrative power of the Gram Pradhan. This petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2009 and the order passed by the District Magistrate was set aside. It was, however, left open to the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner.?

The District Magistrate has now passed the impugned order dated 13th November, 2009 again ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan.

A perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate shows that the reply submitted by the petitioner has been taken into consideration and after that the District Magistrate has formed an opinion that this is a fit case where a formal enquiry should be conducted under Rule 6 of the? 1997 Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the preliminary enquiry that was conducted was not by a district level officer; that the enquiry report had not been submitted within the stipulated period of 30 days and that the order passed by the District Magistrate does not properly appreciate the enquiry report or the reply submitted by the petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

A perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has not taken any ground with regard to the preliminary enquiry not being conducted by a district level officer or that the enquiry was not completed within thirty days. It is, therefore, not possible to examine this contention in the writ petition.

The third contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the preliminary enquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner have been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate.

There is, therefore, no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.