MOHD SADIQ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition in question has been filed questioning the validity of the decision dated 05.06.2009 undertaken by District Magistrate, Jhansi wherein financial and administrative power of the Pradhan has been restored back.

(2.) Brief background of the case as is emanating from the pleadings is that complaint has been made before District Magistrate, Jhansi by Smt. Kushma Devi, Santram Dhobi, Dhan Prasad Pal, Parshu Sonker members of Gram Panchayat Mahrajganj Teri and by Manoj Kant, Moti Ram and Smt. Kamla Devi resident of aforesaid gram panchayat. In support of the said complaint affidavit has also been filed by the aforesaid complainant. After said complaint has been moved supported by affidavit as is envisaged under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. District Magistrate passed order for getting preliminary enquiry conducted by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Jhansi. Said Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 31.7.2007 and found various financial and administrative lapses in various works which have been carried out. For this purpose show cause notice was issued to Pradhan on 18.8.2007. Pradhan in question, Lallu Singh submitted his reply and contended that Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Jhansi is not at all men with technical knowledge, as such in such a situation opinion which has been formed was not correct opinion. On this objection being moved, inquiry was got conducted by Junior Engineer, and said Officer has also submitted his report that office of Pradhan has been misused. Pradhan in question has embezzled Rs. 2,74,946. At the said point of time when report in question has been submitted, District Magistrate in its turn in exercise of its authority vested under first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, proceeded to cease financial and administrative power of the Pradhan vide order dated 04.06.2009 and said cessation of financial and administrative was to continue till the Pradhan was not exonerated in the final formal inquiry. Three member committee was constituted and therein petitioner was also nominated as one of the member and Chairman of said three members committee. Sri Shyam Ji Ram, Assistant Engineer, II D.R.D.A, Jhansi was appointed as Inquiry Officer. District Magistrate, Jhansi while passing order asked to make inquiry as per the provision as contained under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 as amended in the year 2001 and report was to be submitted within 15 days. Thereafter pursuant to said order passed, the Assistant Engineer, II D.R.D.A, Jhansi on 17.02.2009 submitted his report and after the said report in question has been submitted, when final decision was not being taken, at the said juncture Lalloo Singh, Pradhan preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25634 of 2009 (Laloo Singh v. State of U.R and others) and this Court asked District Magistrate, Jhansi to examine the final inquiry report submitted by Enquiry Officer and to conclude the proceedings against the Pradhan, in accordance with law and time frame was also provided. Thereafter District Magistrate considered the said report and has proceeded to revoke financial and administrative power of Pradhan, Laloo Singh. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been submitted that final report has been submitted on 17.2.2009 by Assistant Engineer, II D.R.D.A, Jhansi wherein it has been found that Pradhan has not committed any financial irregularities and it was also found that sum of Rs. 2,74,946 was sanctioned and Pradhan had incurred expenditure of Rs. 2,78,490/-. in this background no charge whatsoever has been made out. Final decision was not being taken, in this background directives were issued by this Court to finalize the said proceedings. It has been mentioned that petitioner has no locus standi to file writ petition as he has no vested right to continue as Chairman of three members committee, in this background it has been requested that writ petition be dismissed.