STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. JANKI DEVI PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1995 the respondent was elected as Zila Panchayat Adhyaksh in District Sultanpur, State of U.P. Certain complaints were received against her wherein the State Government directed an inquiry to be made by the District Magistrate who in his turn got the preliminary inquiry conducted through Additional District Magistrate (Establishment), Sultanpur. Acting on the preliminary inquiry report and a supplementary report prepared by the Additional District Magistrate, the State Government instituted a formal inquiry and at the same time directed the respondent to be divested of financial and administrative powers exercised by her in the capacity of Zila Panchayat Adhyaksh.

(2.) Section 29 of Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat Adhiniyam 1961 (U.P. Act No. 33 of 1961), (hereinafter the Act, for short) and Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1977 (hereinafter Enquiry Rules, for short) framed in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 237 read with Ss. 16 and 29 of the Act provide as under: Act

(3.) The impugned order divesting the respondents of her powers was put in issue by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the High Court of U.P. at Allahabad. The principal plea raised on behalf of the respondent was that the complaints against her were false and politically motivated as respondent did not belong to the same political party as was ruling the State and that the preliminary inquiry held under Rule 4 was the foundation of the impugned order which inquiry, the respondent being an Adhyaksh could have been held only by District Magistrate and not by an Additional District magistrate, and therefore, the inquiry was a nullity having been held by an officer not competent to hold the same, and hence, irrelevant to serve as foundation for the impugned order. The High Court by its impugned judgment dated 11-9-1998 delivered by a Division Bench directed the impugned order to be quashed holding the preliminary enquiry conducted by an Additional District Magistrate to be incompetent and vitiated. The submission made on behalf of the State that District Magistrate included an Additional District Magistrate, and therefore an inquiry held by an Additional District Magistrate could not be said to be incompetent, was rejected. On 19-11-1998 the State filed this petition seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. Subsequently, leave was granted and the petition was converted into a Civil Appeal. The respondent was noticed and has vehemently opposed the appeal.