BIRENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHIPAL Singh opposite party No. 3 was Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Palirajapur in the district of Aligarh while the petitioner was a member of that Gaon Sabha. Certain charges were framed against the Pradhan and inquiries were held which resulted into his remo val by an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer Kol dated 25th August, 1969. Mahipal Singh preferred an appeal be fore the District Magistrate, Aligarh which was allowed by an order of the Additional District Magistrate, Aligarh dated 20th January, 1970. The order of removal was set aside and the Pradhan was reinstated to his office. The Addi tional District Magistrate, however, dir ected that a warning be issued to the Pradhan that in future he should comply with the rules more strictly. The peti tioner has filed the present petition challenging the validity of the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 20th January. 1970.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the peti tioner has firstly urged that there is no provision for appeal under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the rules framed thereunder, as such, no appeal was competent before the District Magis trate, the impugned order is, therefore, without jurisdiction. Under S. 95 (1) (g) of the Act State Government is em powered to suspend or remove a member or a Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha from his office on the grounds stated therein. The powers exercisable by the State Govern ment under the provisions of the Act can be delegated to any officer or authority subordinate to the State Government. Secition 96-A lays down that the State Gov ernment may delegate all or any of its powers under the Act to any officer or authority subordinate to it subject to "such conditions and restrictions as it may deem fit to impose". The State Gov ernment issued a notification No. 4193-K/ XXXIII-664 dated 27th July, 1966 pub lished in the U. P. Gazette Part I dated 30th July, 1966 delegating its power under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act to Sub-Divi sional Officer, subject to an order for removal passed by him being appealable to the District Magistrate. The power to remove a Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha was delegated by the State Government to the Sub-Divisional Officer, subject to the condition that the order of removal shall be subject to an order passed by the District Magistrate in appeal. It ap pears that certain difficulty was found in implementing these provisions. The State Government thereupon issued another notification No 1171-B-XXXII-2-116-G-66 dated 30th October, 1967 published in the U. P. Gazette Hth November. 1967 modi-trying the earlier notification dated 27th July, 1966 in so far as it related to the delegation of power under S. 95 (1) (g) of the Act to the Sub-Divisional Officer. By this notification the State Government (further imposed conditions on the ex ercise of power of removal by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Under the impugned notification the Sub-Divisional Officer is required to send a copy of the order of removal passed by him against a Pradhan to the District Magistrate who is autho rised to call for the record suo motu or on appeal being filed by the affected Pradhan and if on an examination of the record the District Magistrate is satis fied that no case was made out against ithe Pradhan. he may rescind or vary the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is, therefore, clear that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was subject to the order passed by the District Magistrate in appeal, hence, the District Magistrate had full jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and reinstate the Pradhan.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has further urged that even if the District Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal and set aside the order of removal passed bv the Sub-Divisional Officer under Sec tion 95 (1) (g) of the Act. an Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over that order, the impugn ed order, therefore, is without jurisdic tion. The notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under S. 96-A of the Act delegating powers and functions to the District Magistrate was issued under the Act itself. S. 20 (d) of the Act defines "Collector". According to the definition of "Collector" "District Magistrate" or "Sub-Divisional Officer with reference to a Gaon Sabha means a Collector, District Magistrate or Sub-Divi sional Magistrate of the District or the Sub-Division as the case may be, in which such Gaon Sabha is situated and shall res pectively include tihe Additional Collector, Additional District Magistrate and Addi tional Sub-Divisional Magistrate". The definition given in Section 2 (d) is avail able to interpret the Act and the notifica tions issued thereunder unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or con text. Nothing has been placed before me to show that the State Government in tended to exclude Additional District Magistrate when it authorised the Dis trict Magistrate to exercise powers in ap peal. According to the definition itself an Additional District Magistrate can ex ercise the powers of District Magistrate, therefore, the impugned order has not been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction in the matter. A similar view was taken by Satish Chandra. J. in Tula Ram Pradhan v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Agra, 1970 All WR (HC) 38.