Jamil Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner was elected as a Pradhan, but subsequently, was convicted of an offence and was sent to jail on account of his conviction. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice as to why he should not be removed from the post of the Pradhan. Upon his reply that he has filed an appeal against his conviction, the District Magistrate passed an order u/s 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj, Act, 1947 read with U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 removing him from the post of the Pradhan. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

Section 5(1)(g) provides as under:

(1) The State Government may--

(g). remove a Pradhan. Up-Pradhan or member of a Gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabhandhak Samiti or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if he--

(i) absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings,

(ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude,

(iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or

(iii-a) has taken the benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section 11-A or Sub-section (5) of Section 12, as the case may be, on the basis of a false declaration subscribed by him stating that he is a member of the Scheduled Castes; the Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Classes, as the case may be.

(iv) being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in politics, or

(v) suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5-A:

Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities, such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry be exercised and performed by a Committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government.

Provided that--

(i) no action shall be taken under clause (f), clause (g) except after giving to the body or person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed.

Section 5-A(g) provides as under:

Section 5-A-Disqualification for membership-A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, (the Pradhan or) a member of a Gram Panchayat, if he--

(g) has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude;

A perusal of the aforesaid, makes it clear that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen and for being the Pradhan, if he has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.

In the tight of the aforesaid provision, once a person has been convicted, he incurs a disqualification for being chosen or for being the Pradhan and is disqualified from holding an office.

Section 95(1)(g)(ii) provides that the State Government may remove a Pradhan, if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude. In the instant case, the petitioner has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, and consequently, the District Magistrate was justified in removing the petitioner from the post of Pradhan under the said provision.

In Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P., , a Division Bench of this Court has held that if a person is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, he would be removed as the Pradhan u/s 95(1)(g) of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order.

Dismissed.