LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-48

RAJENDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On July 03, 2010
RAJENDRA YADAV Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition in question has been filed for quashing of the order dated 01.02.2010 (Annexure-5) passed by District Magistrate, Ballia proceeding to pass order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gangapur Block Bariya District Ballia.

(2.) Brief background of the case is that General Election of Gram Panchayat was held. Petitioner has also filed his nomination paper for the post of Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Gangapur, Block Bariya, District Ballia and in the said election so held petitioner was declared elected. While petitioner continued to perform and discharge duties as Pradhan in Criminal Trial S.T. No. 334 of 1997 (State of U.P. v. Harendra Yadav and Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 1995 under Sections 302 / 34 IPC, order of conviction has been passed by Special/Additional Session & District Judge, Ballia on 25.08.2009 and pursuant thereto petitioner was taken into custody and thereafter petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5312 of 2009 (Harendra Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P.) before this Court and this Court on 28.10.2009 passed order for releasing the petitioner on bail. District Magistrate thereafter on 11.11.2009 issued show cause notice to petitioner mentioning therein that petitioner has been convicted in criminal case wherein sentence of life imprisonment alongwith fine has been imposed and charges leveled therein involved moral turpitude, as such petitioner may submit his reply within fifteen days, as to why he should not be removed Pursuant thereto petitioner submitted his reply on 30.11.2009 and also requested that in public interest petitioner be permitted to resume his job of Pradhan. District Magistrate has considered the reply so filed by the petitioner and found that petitioner was an accused in a murder case involving moral turpitude in such a situation his continuance as Pradhan was totally improper and removal was essential, and in this background order of removal has been passed.

(3.) Supplementary affidavit has also been filed in reference of reference of question of disqualification of the petitioner under Section 6A to Prescribed Authority on 12.03.2010.