AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
23 paragraphs · 380 wordsSUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2018, by which she has been removed from the post of “Gram Pradhan†by the District
Magistrate, Rudraprayag exercising the powers under Section 138 (1)(c) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. Section 138 (1) (c) of the
aforesaid Act reads as under:-
“138. (1) The State Government may remove a member of the Panchayats on any of the following grounds-
(a)…
(b)…
(c) that he has been guilty, whether in his present or an earlier term of office, of misconduct in the discharge of his duty as such member, Pradhan, Up
pradhan, Pramukh, Up pramukh, Chairman, Vice chairman or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or caused loss or damage to the fund
and property of the State Government or Panchayats and such misconduct, contravention or causing of loss or damage renders due to conduct of
work as unauthorised in place by women representative, her husband or family members or relatives, such women shall be ineligible as member,
Pradhan, Up pradhan, Pramukh, Up pramukh, Chairman, Vice chairman, in such case they may be suspended upto the departmental final enquiry and
their work and duties may be hand over to a committee of three elected members of the concerning Panchayat. In addition to that disciplinary action
also may be taken against the departmental employees/officer, if found guilty in the enquiry.â€
Admittedly, no enquiry has been conducted in the matter. Moreover, the District Magistrate has no powers to pass such an order.
Learned State Counsel Mr. K.N. Joshi has informed this Court that these powers have been delegated to the District Magistrate by the State
Government under Section 146 of the aforesaid Act vide order dated 9.06.2017.
In view of this Court, even delegation of these powers has wrongly been done inasmuch as such powers are quasi judicial in nature and therefore
cannot be delegated.
In view of the above, the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 27.06.2018 shall remain stayed until further orders of this Court.
Three weeks’ time is granted to the State to file counter affidavit.
List this case on 12.09.2018 in the daily cause list.
Stay application (CLMA No.12049 of 2018) stands disposed.