Radha Krishna Sharma vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 15.7.96 Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

By the impugned order, financial and administrative powers of the Petitioner who is the Gram Pradhan have been taken away till the pendency of the enquiry under the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there are several complaints of financial and other irregularities against the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order could only have been passed after giving the opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner I do not agree with this contention. In my opinion, the order under the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) can be passed without giving any opportunity of hearing, because it is only an interim measure subject to the final decision of the enquiry. There may be cases of grave irregularities by a Pradhan in which the immediate action may be required to prevent him from doing further misdeeds and hence, the Legislature has catered for this by inserting the first proviso by U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 9 of 1994. Hence, in my opinion, the impugned order could have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then relied on the second proviso to Section 95(1)(g). In my opinion, the second proviso only means that the Pradhan cannot be removed without giving opportunity of hearing. The impugned order does not amount to removal of the Pradhan. It only takes away certain of his powers during the pendency of the enquiry as an interim measure. Hence, in my opinion, the second proviso has no application in this case.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner lastly submitted that no authority has been specified under the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g). I do not agree with this contention. By a notification u/s 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer has been delegated the power of the State Government, and hence in my opinion, a Sub-Divisional Officer has the power to pass the order under the first proviso. The impugned order has been passed by a Deputy Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer is of the rank of Deputy Collector.

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed, but I direct that the enquiry against the Petitioner must be completed within four months of the production of the certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.