SHER BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Petitioner, a village Pradhan of Gram Sabha Sitwanpur Pithu, Block Mohammabadad, district-Farrukhabad has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the communication dtd. 28/12/2022 of Chief Development Officer, Farrukhabad addressed to District Magistrate, Farrukhabad recommending to initiate proceedings against petitioner under Sec. 95 (1) (g) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ''Act, 1947') as he failed to perform his duties imposed by State for maintaining a ''Gaushala' properly and has committed financial irregularities also. Petitioner has failed to disclose the source of document impugned as it is a communication between one authority to other except that this document was in public domain.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his submission to challenge aforesaid communication, has submitted that Chief Development Officer is not an appropriate authority i.e. not a District Level Officer nor a Officer nominated by District Magistrate to fall under the definition of ''Inquiry Officer' of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter called ''the Rules, 1997'), therefore, impugned communication cannot be treated to be a ''preliminary enquiry' as defined under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1997, therefore, recommendation made in the impugned communication to initiate proceedings against petitioner under Sec. 95 (1) (g) of the Act, 1947 was beyond his jurisdiction and District Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the same.