CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Shyam Lal vs State of U.P.& others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 14 January 1993 · Citation: (1993) 01 AHC CK 0046

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.K.Mathur, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — Section 95(1)(g)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 109 (M/S) of 1993
Ask AI about this case

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

8 paragraphs · 370 words

J.K. Mathur, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of removal passed against him by the opposite party no. 3 on 8101992.

2.

The petitioner was working as Pradhan. He was served with a chargesheet and his reply was obtained. Thereafter the impugned order was passed.

3.

The impugned order has been challenged mainly on the ground that it has not considered the reply given by the petitioner nor there is any finding that any of the acts contained in clauses 1 to 5 of Section 95 (1) (g) of Panchayat Raj Act have been committed.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.

A perusal of the order, contained in Annexure No. 3, shows that a chargesheet was given to which the petitioner made a reply on 1921992. This order goes to enumerate the various allegations made against the petitioner. There is no consideration of reply given by the petitioner nor is there any material considered with a view to find that any of the acts of misconduct were actually committed by the petitioner.

6.

The only satisfaction recorded by the authority concerned is that these allegations are serious which have been given to be the reason to remove the petitioner.

7.

Under Section 95 (1)(g), the order of removal can be passed only if any of the acts mentioned in the provision appears to have been committed. There is nothing contained in the order which shows that the authority concerned was satisfied about the commission of these acts. A reasonable opportunity required to be given does not consist of mere formality to obtain reply but also includes consideration of the reply and determination of facts, neither of which are present in the present case and the result is that the order is not a valid one responding to the provisions of law or the principles of the natural justice and is liable to be quashed.

8.

The petition is, therefore, allowed and the order, contained in Annexure No. 3, is hereby quashed. However, it shall be open for the opposite parties to proceed in accordance with law and pass the appropriate order in view of what has been pointed above. (Petition allowed.)