SURESH SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER MORADABAD DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHD. Yunus, respondent no. 4, was elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Mauja Mewa Nawada, Pargana Shivhara, Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor. In the same election, the petitioner, Suresh Singh, was elected as Up-Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. MOHD. Yunus was suspended under Section 95 (1) (gg) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by respondent no. 2, by his order dated 15-5-1V90. As a stopgap arrangement, the petitioner, being Up- Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, was given the charge of office of the Pradhan, which he was holding till date. Respondent no. 4 abused his position as Pradhan and he was found guilty of various irregularities. The petitioner, in his capacity as Up-Pradhan, and other members of the Gaon Sabha made several complaints against the pradhan before respondent no. 2. A show-cause notice was given to respondent no. 4. who was also suspended by an order dated 15-5-1990 passed by respondent no, 2. By the same order the Tahsildar, Dbampur was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. A charge-sheet was submitted against respondent no. 4 An enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar, Dhampur, who submitted his report on 23-1-1991 to respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2, after considering the report of the Tahsildar, recalled the order dated 15-5-1990 and reinstated respondent do. 4 on the post of pradhan. A copy of the order dated 25-7- 1991 is Annexure III to the writ petition The contention of the petitioner is that although he made complaints against respondent no. 4 he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings against the Pradhan. It was contended than the order dated 25-7-1991, passed by respondent no. 2, is wholly illegal. arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said order he also filed a revision before the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, respondent no 1, which was dismissed on 22-3-1991. Feeling aggrieved from the said order of the Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 25-7-1991, passed by respondent no 2, and 22-8-1991, passed by respondent no. 1.

(2.) WITH the consent of the; parties, the petition was heard finally at the stage of admission and is being disposed of accordingly.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner that he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings against respondent no. 4 is also not supported by any material on record. THEre is nothing to show that he moved an application before the Tahsildar, who was conducting an enquiry or before respondent no. 2 for examining him as a witness against respondent no. 4. THErefore, his bare allegation, without any supporting material, that he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings against respondent no. 4 cannot be accepted.