RAMESHO DEVI KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF UTTARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the preliminary enquiry report dated 27-11-2007 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and orders dated 28-4-2008 (copies Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition), whereby the respondent No. 1 has divested the petitioner of administrative and financial powers under section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra panchayats and Zila Panchayats Act, 1961 and appointed Commissioner, Garhwal division, to conduct the final enquiry.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the parties.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, haridwar, in the elections held in the year 2005. She took over the charge of said office on 18-11 -2005, and since then was discharging her duties. The Vice-Chairman and nine other members of the Zila Panchayat, with ulterior motive to settle the political score, made false complaint to respondent no. 1 on 31-3-2006 with eight allegations against the petitioner. Copy of said complaint is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 1, vide letter dated 29-9-2006, appointed respondent No. 2 (District magistrate, Haridwar) as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the preliminary enquiry in the matter. On 11-12-2006, the respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner to give reply against each allegation mentioned in the complaint. It is alleged by the petitioner that neither the compliance of Rule 3, nor that of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up- Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules 1997, were made, as such, the preliminary enquiry report conducted by the respondent No. 2, is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that no show-cause notice was given to the petitioner within the time prescribed, nor any reply could have been sought under the law from the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 in respect of new allegations made in the subsequent complaints made against the petitioner, as the subsequent complaints were not supported with the affidavits as required under the rules. Challenging the orders passed by respondent No. 1 to hold the final enquiry on the basis of the preliminary enquiry submitted by respondent No. 2, it is stated in the writ petition that the respondent No. 1 has not recorded the satisfaction to hold the final enquiry, as per the rules. As to the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry report it is stated that there was no intentional disregard of any rules on the part of the petitioner. No financial loss was caused to the zila Panchayat. It is further stated in the writ petition that as to the finding relating to misconduct on the part of Sri Pal Singh kashyap (husband of the petitioner) the same is false. It is also stated that the contracts were given to the highest bidders. Lastly, it is stated that there is no finding in the preliminary enquiry report, as to the embezzlement of public money done by the petitioner,