MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of a complaint a preliminary inquiry was made under Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules of 1997'). On the basis of this preliminary inquiry report the petitioner's financial and administrative powers was ceased. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition, which was disposed of directing the District Magistrate to conclude the final inquiry under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997.

(2.) Pursuant to the said direction, the District Magistrate appointed an inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997. The inquiry officer submitted his report purported to be under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997. The District Magistrate, after considering the matter, passed a final order, removing the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1947 on the ground of dereliction of duty and financial irregularity. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) In paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the writ petition it has been specifically stated that the inquiry officer has not conducted the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997. This fact has, however, been denied in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, but, details have not been provided.