PUSHPA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.P.S.Chauhan and Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

(2.) The instant case discloses the manner in which the State authorities have thrown caution to the wind and have patently misused the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to 'Rules of 1997') in passing orders ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan and thereafter removing him under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The manner in which the two orders have been passed are in gross violation of the provisions of Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1997.

(3.) The petitioner was elected as the Pradhan and was discharging her duties. Certain persons, being aggrieved, filed a complaint on the basis of which a preliminary inquiry was instituted under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1997. A preliminary inquiry report was submitted indicating that the petitioner had not carried out the work in the right earnest and that she had misappropriated certain amount. Based on this preliminary inquiry report, a show cause notice, dated 24.4.2013, was issued. The petitioner gave a reply. The District Magistrate rejected the reply, on the short ground, that the reply was not found satisfactory and without recording any reason as to whether the petitioner, prima facie, had misappropriated any amount issued an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2013, filed writ petition No.31474 of 2013, which was entertained and an interim order dated 30.5.2013 was passed staying the impugned order, leaving it open to the District Magistrate to conclude the final inquiry under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997.