NEELAM DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Fatehpur Sangat, Block and Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur being elected in 2021 and was discharging her duties of the said post. Certain complaints were made with regard to her discharge of duties and working and conduct as Pradhan. It was alleged that despite the public money being allocated the work of re-boring of the hand pump and also the work of interlocking and supply of Hume Pipes was not got done as per the prescribed specifications and there were allegations of defalcation of State funds and consequently preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by District Panchayati Raj Officer, District Sultanpur. In the said inquiry the allegations were found to be substantiated and accordingly in exercise of the powers under Sec. 95 (1) (g) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were seized by means of the order dtd. 4/11/2023.

(3.) The petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition against the aforesaid order being writ C No.10633 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court by means of order dtd. 7/12/2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections and grounds which was legally permissible before the competent authority. It has been submitted that the petitioner submitted detailed objections before District Magistrate, Sultanpur. The final inquiry was also conducted and report was submitted on 15/4/2024 which was placed before the District Magistrate, who in pursuance of the report issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 27/4/2024 and the petitioner had again knocked the doors of this Court assailing both the orders in writ C No.4434 of 2024. The said writ petition was allowed and this Court was of the view that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner and accordingly the State respondents were directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law. It has been submitted that in pursuance of the judgment and order of this Court dtd. 22/5/2024 the proceedings are still pending and have not attained finality.