SANDHYA GUPTA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Smt. Sandhya Gupta admittedly is the duly elected Pradhan of Gaon Panchayat. Jagatpur, Post Muradganj. Block Ajitmal, district Auraiya, which was earlier a part of district Etawah. Certain complaints were received against her with regard to financial irregularities including squandering of public money as well as extracting illegal gratification. The Chief Development Officer, Etawah passed an order on 19-7-1997 stripping the petitioner of her financial powers by invoking the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947). This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26863 of 1997 in which the order passed by the Chief Development Officer (for short 'C.D.O.') was directed to remain in abeyance. Consequently, the C.D.O. rescinded his earlier order dated 19,7.1997 and restored the financial power of the petitioner by passing fresh order dated 28.8.1997.

(2.) An enquiry into the complaints made against the petitioner was initiated under the provisions of U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan. Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules. 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997). Naib Tahsildar as well as Junior Engineer of the area were entrusted with the task of inquiring into the complaints and the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short 'S.D.O.') by his letter dated 12.8.1997 addressed to the C.D.O. Etawah forwarded the joint report dated 5.8.1997 submitted by the Naib Tahsitdar and Junior Engineer specifying that three concrete charges have been found to be correct against the petitioner-firstly, that Sri Hart Om Gupta who is younger brother of the husband of the petitioner (Dewar) had extracted a sum of Rs. 2,100 as illegal gratification from each of the eight allottees of the houses constructed under the Indira Awas Scheme ; secondly, one Naresh Chand. a member of the Block Development Committee had obtained a sum of Rs. 1.800 as illegal gratification from Smt. Sonwati. wife of Ram Sewak in the bank premises in connection with the allotment of house in the said scheme ; and, thirdly, excess amount of Rs. 8,127 has been shown to have been incurred in executing the various projects under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna during 1996-97. According to report of the Junior Engineer, the estimated cost of the various works comes to Rs. 1.00,230 while a sum of Rs. 1,08.357 is shown to have been spent. On receipt of the report of the S.D.O.. the District Magistrate, Etawah issued notice under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act of 1947 on 20.9.1997 to the petitioner to show cause within three days as to why she should not be removed from the office of Pradhan as she has no moral right to continue on the post on account of misappropriation or squandering of public funds and misuse of office, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Denying the charges against her. the petitioner submitted a reply on 9.10.1997. a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition and maintained that the complaints have been engineered against her at the behest of certain persons who are out to tarnish her image as well as her family members. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 14.11.1998, Annexure-3 to the writ petition was passed by the District Magistrate, Auraiya removing the petitioner from the office of Pradhan by observing that the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice was not satisfactory and that she has not been able to bring on record the facts which may fortify her stand. It is this order which has been challenged by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is prayed that the impugned order 14.1.1998 be quashed and the respondents be commanded not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as a duly elected Pradhan of the village.

(3.) Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of as contemplated under the Rules of the Court.