SUMAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 5.8.2004 passed by the opposite party No. 2, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby in exercise of powers conferred under Section 95(1)(g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, administrative and financial powers of petitioner, who is the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhanagerl, Tehsil Mohammadi, District Kheri has been ceased pending final enquiry and a three member committee has been constituted.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raghavendra Singh as well as Sri D.K. Singh Chauhan, who appears for the opposite parties at some length.

(3.) Sri Singh with great vehemence argued that the impugned order on the face of it suffers from manifest illegality inasmuch as that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the impugned order do not constitute act of either financial or administrative irregularity which can be attributed to her. According to him it was the Secretary concerned who made manipulations in the record resulting into the passing of the impugned order and who consequent thereto has also been placed under suspension. His next limb of argument is that since the enquiry report also does not reveal any financial or administrative lapses, therefore, the order impugned is bad and runs contrary to what is contemplated under Section 95(1)(g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The allegations of malice has also been levelled against the Block Pramukh. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Assistant Engineer is not a District Level Officer, therefore, enquiry conducted by him is not in accordance with the Rules. His submission further is that the District Magistrate while exercising the powers under Section 95(1)(g) has directed the D.R.P.O. to a constitute three member committee. According to him this is also illegal inasmuch as the power is to be exercised by the State Government and not by the D.P.R.O.