VISHRAM DASS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Sri R.C. Singh for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Mehta, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri Dinesh Dwivedi for the caveator. As this petition can be decided on a short question of law it is not necessary to call for any counter from the respondents.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner Vishram Dass was elected as Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Allahabad on 2-5-95. On 20-3-98 a complaint was made against him by one Ramesh Narain alias Madan Mishra before the Minister, Panchayat Raj of State of U.P. mentioning therein 18 financial and administrative irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner. On this complaint State of U.P. by an order dated 27-6-98 directed a preliminary enquiry by Collector, Allahabad. Report on basis of the preliminary enquiry was submitted on 4-12-98. After receipt of the aforesaid report, a show cause notice dated 9-6-99 was served on the petitioner stating therein that on the examination of the report of the Collector, the petitioner had been found responsible for certain points. Petitioner was asked to submit his reply on the said points. In this notice seven points have been mentioned on which the explanation of the petitioner was required. On receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 9-6-99 petitioner by his letter dated 16-6-99. Annexure 8 to the writ petition requested that he may be supplied a copy of the enquiry report of the Collector, Allahabad, without which it shall not be possible for him to submit his reply, as allegations mentioned in the letter are mainly based on the report of the Collector. The petitoner was not supplied the copy of the report submitted by the Collector and straightway the impugned order dated 4-8-99, Annexure 4 to the writ petition was passed against him depriving the petitioner of his financial and administrative function which he was entitled to discharge as Chairman of the Zila Panchayat. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 4-8-99 has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as petitioner was not supplied copy of the report submitted by the Collector on basis of the preliminary enquiry conducted by him. It is submitted that seve allegations against petitioner were made on the basis of the report of the Collector and for submitting explanation against the said allegations, perusal of the report was necessary. In this connection it has also been submitted that in the impugned order no reasons have been assigned as to why explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory. The explanation was submitted before the Collector which has not been taken into consideration at all. Reference has been made to the letter dated 16-6-99 by which the petitioner has only requested for supply of the report of the Collector submitted on the basis of the preliminary enquiry. The learned Counsel has submitted that as no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order for not accepting the explanation, the order is bad and suffers from manifactly error of law.