ANJANA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri R. C. Kushwaha alongwith Mr. Krishna Ji Khare on behalf of the caveator. Learned counsel for the respondent-State that they do not wish to file counter-affidavit and thus, writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(2.) THE petitioner is an elected Gram Pradhan. By means of the impugned order dated 6.6.2009, passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been ceased. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order has been passed in gross violation of the provisions of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on some complaint made to the Chief Minister in the year 2007. An enquiry report was submitted on 31.10.2008 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) in which the allegations made against the petitioner were found to be absolutely baseless. Another complaint regarding the same allegations had been made before the District Magistrate by means of an affidavit dated 24.5.2008, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same goes to show that in the very beginning of the affidavit it has been stated that the affidavit is being filed on behalf of the villagers, without giving details of the deponent of the affidavit. In the end it is merely signed by some persons, without even clearly writing their names. THE parentage and the addresses of such signatories have also not been mentioned. It is this affidavit on the basis of which the District Magistrate has initiated proceedings against the petitioner. THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of such a complaint/affidavit no action could have taken place against the petitioner, has force.

(3.) FURTHER, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, to which a reply was submitted by her. In the impugned order, all that has been done by the District Magistrate is merely quoting the entire reply and in the end stating that the explanation given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and hence the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges levelled against her. The District Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction as to why the explanation given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. Merely stating that the explanation is not satisfactory, is not sufficient, as the same does not show application of mind by the District Magistrate before passing the impugned order.