RAM LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition the petitioner, who was Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Madhupuri, in the district of Shahjahanpur, challenges the legality of an order passed on the 5th of March, 1973 by the Sub - Divisional Officer, Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur, removing him from the office of the Pradhan in exercise of powers under Sec. 95 (g) (iii) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and debarring him from being nominated or elected to any office under the Act in future.

(2.) Two submissions have been made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of this petition. He firstly contended that the law requires two notices to be issued before a Pradhan can be removed from his office, the first notice being one containing the charges and the other subsequently requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Pradhan. In the instant case, it is argued that only one notice was served on the petitioner in disregard of the law and consequently the order impugned is not sustainable. This submission, in our opinion, is contrary to the facts emerging from the record produced by the petitioner himself. Annexure '3' is a copy of the order sheet maintained by the Sub - Divisional Officer in respect or the proceedings that were taken against the petitioner. On the 7th of June, 1974 it appears from the order, a charge sheet was framed against the petitioner and it was directed to be served on the petitioner through Tahsildar requiring him to submit his explanation to the charges by the 3rd of July, 1974. The order sheet dated 17th July, 1974 records that the charge-sheet had been served on the petitioner on the 6th of July, 1974. From the order sheet dated 25th July, 1974 the fact that the charges had been served on the 6th of July, 1974 is confirmed because it is recorded that though the Pradhan was required to submit his explanation to the charges by 22nd July, 1974 on that date he had filed an application for extending the time for filing his explanation by a period of 15 days. It appears that the petitioner, however, did not submit his explanation to the charge in spite of time having been given to him. Ultimately since the petitioner had submitted no explanation on the 19th of Oct., 1974, according to the order-sheet, the Sub - Divisional Officer directed notice to be issued to him to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of the Pradhan Chairman, Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti within a period of 15 days. The notice to show cause mentioned in the order-sheet of the 19th of Oct., 1974 was also served on the petitioner as is apparent from the admission contained in the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charges framed against him. It is on the 18th of Dec., 1974 that the petitioner submitted a composite reply to the charges as well as to the notice to show cause. The first contention consequently fails.

(3.) It was next contended that in disregard of the requirement of subsection (2) of Sec. 95 the Sub-Divisional Officer has debarred the petitioner from holding any office under the Act for an indefinite period. Subsection (2) of Sec. 95 of the Act runs as follows:-