SUSHMA SENGAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARTIES agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage itself, without calling for any further affidavits. The order impugned passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer records that the District Magistrate on 21.03.2009 has approved the ceasure of the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan with reference to the report of the Assistant Engineer, Zila Gram Vikas Adhikari, Auraiya dated 28.01.2009. Consequently the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan are being ceased. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the District Magistrate has the competence to cease the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan on the basis of preliminary enquiry report under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (herein after referred to as the 1997 Rules). He contends that no such exercise has been undertaken by the District Magistrate. This Court vide order dated 15.04.2009 required the Standing Counsel to produce the relevant records to establish as to whether any order under Section 95(1) (g) was passed by the District Magistrate. Today the records have been produced by the Standing Counsel and the same has been examined. On record there are various reports and the recommendation of the Chief Development Officer exist on record for appropriate action being taken against the petitioner Pradhan. However there is no order of the District Magistrate with reference to the powers vested in him under Section 95(1)(g). The reports are only for the guidance of the District Magistrate qua exercise of statutory power. Mere Anumodan by the District Magistrate will not amount to an order under Section 95 (1) (g). Consequently the order passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer dated 21.03.2009 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan, cannot be termed as an order by the District Magistrate after due application of mind with reference to statutory scheme provided under Section 95 (1) (g) read with 1997 Rules. The order is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. However this order will not in any way prejudice the rights of the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order under Section 95 (1) (g), as may be warranted under law.