ISHWAR DAYAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAINPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for self and for R. C. Srivastava, J.) :-The petitioner was Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Medapur in the district of Mainpuri. On a complaint made against the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer held an enquiry and framed two charges against the petitioner. The first charge related to the alleged irregularity committed by the petitioner in letting out the Gaon Sabha land and the second charge was that the petitioner had accepted illegal gratification at the rate of Rs. 100/- per decimal from the allottees. The petitioner denied the charges but the Sub-Divisional Officer held the charges proved and by his order dated 20th December, 1975, he removed the petitioner from the office of Pradhan. On appeal by the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, by his order dated 16th August, 1976, upheld the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging his removal from the office of Pradhan.

(2.) THE Pradhan of Gaon Sabha is elected by the members of Gaon Sabha in accordance with the provisions contained in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. He is representative of the people and is assigned important functions and duties under the said Act. Section 95 (1) (g) confers power on the State Government to suspend or remove an office bearer of a Gaon Sabha on the grounds mentioned therein. Under the said section a Pradhan or an office bearer of a Gaon Sabha is liable to be removed on the five grounds mentioned therein. Ground No. 3 which is relevant for our purposes lays down that a Pradhan is liable to be removed if he has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform his duties imposed by the Act or the Rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest. No office-bearer of a Gaon Sabha or a Pradhan is liable to be removed from his office unless a positive finding is recorded against him about the abuse of his position or persistent failure in performance of his duties and that his continuance as Pradhan is not desirable in public interest, it is in the background of these observations that the validity of the impugned order need be examined.

(3.) IN the result we allow the petition and quash the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20th December, 1975, and the order of the District Magistrate dated 16th August, 1976. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.