TIRATH RAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the District Magistrate/ Prescribed Authority, Gonda, proviso under Sec. 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had no role in preparing the eligibility list from Pradhanmantri Gramin Awas Yojana. The petitioner was elected in 2015 and took oath in January, 2016 and became Gram Pradhan after the list was finalized by the Appellate Committee of eligible person in 2011. The petitioner was only one of the persons along with the Village Development Officer and Village Panchayat Secretary who distributed the amount meant for construction of Pradhanmantri Awas Yojana to the beneficiaries whose list was finalized in 2011. The preliminary Enquiry Officer did not assign any specific role to the petitioner but has found several persons guilty including the petitioner as Gram Pradhan. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the preliminary Enquiry Officer on 16.07.2020, a show-cause notice was issued on 07.08.2020. In the reply to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner had stated clearly that he had no role to play in finalizing the list of beneficiaries or even distributing the amount to the alleged ineligible persons as it is only Government servants like the Village Development Officer or the Panchayat Secretary, who are responsible for distributing the money to the beneficiaries. This fact was not considered by the District Magistrate and no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the District Magistrate in passing the impugned order. The impugned order is thus violative of the law as has been held by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2011 (29) LCD 221 and also in the case of Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2013 (31) LCD 90.