MALTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard Shri B. D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri M. N. Singh for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 13. 11. 2007, passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar, by which he has ceased petitioner's administrative and financial powers as the elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Baraila, Block Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, under section 95 (1) (g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and has directed the Block Development Officer, Bhadohi to appoint a 'three-member committee', to exercise such powers until the formal enquiry under the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (in short, Rules of 1997) is concluded.

(3.) IT is submitted that under the Rules of 1997, the financial and administrative powers may be ceased, only after a preliminary enquiry is made by the District Magistrate through an enquiry officer. The 'enquiry officer' is defined in the rules as the 'district Panchayat Raj Officer' or any other 'district level officer', to be nominated by the District Magistrate. The District Basic Education Officer is a district level officer. He could not have delegated the powers further to the Assistant Basic Education Officer. He has relied upon the judgements in Chunmun v. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and another 1998 (89) RD 771 (HC) Smt. Sandhya Gupta v. District Magistrate, Auraiya and others, 1999 (90) RD 246 (HC) Smt. Sarojana Devi v. State of UP and others 2001 (92) RD 720 (HC) Chandrajit Raj Bhar v. District Magistrate, Pilibhit and others, 2002 (93) RD 139 Smt. Shanti v. District Magistrate, Sultanpur and others, 2000 (2) A. W. C. 1395 (LB) Moti Lal v. District Magistrate, Lalitpur and another, 2003 (94) RD 327 (HC) Krishna Devi (Smt.) v. District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and others, 2003 (95) RD 569 (HC) Satish Chandra Tripathi v. State of U. P. and others, 2004 (96) RD 47 and Rajeshivari Kushwaha (Smt.) v. District Magistrate Kanpur Nagar and others 2004 (97) RD 664 (HC) in support of his submissions regarding the competence of the officer to conduct the enquiry.