RAMPAL SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Chauri Mandi, district Saharanpur, is aggrieved by the office order dated 10.7.1998 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharanpur, in pursuance of an order dated 8.7.1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. 1947 (in short the Act) and consequential order dated 8.7.1998 of the Khand Vikas Adhikari, Saraswan, district Saharanpur, thereby informing the Branch Manager, District Co-operative Bank, Saraswan that Khata No. 3323 would hereafter be operated by the committee referred to in the order dated 10.7.1998 in place of the petitioner.

(2.) Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act empowers the State Government to remove Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or Member of a Gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, Sahayak Sarpanch or Surpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat on the ground enumerated therein. The first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act visualise that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have corruptive financial and other irregularities, such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated or the charges in final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government.

(3.) The thereof of the submission made by the Vijendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order are violative of the mandatory possession of Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act and those of the Rules known as U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (in short the Enquiry Rules). Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that action under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) fg) of the Act can be taken only on the the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer under Rule 7 of the Enquiry Rules and not otherwise. Learned Standing counsel refuted the submissions made by Sri Vijendra Singh and submitted that the action under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act can be taken even on the basis of the report submitted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer under Rule 4 (2) of the Enquiry Rules.