PYAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF YTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF YTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HEARD Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Paresh
Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
(2.) THE petitioner was elected as a Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Aarsh Block
Bhilangana District Tehri Garhwal in the year 2008. The Gram Pradhan is elected for a period of five years. Respondent No. 6 - Jai
Pal Singh, who is a resident of the same village, moved a complaint before the State
Government alleging certain irregularities
against the elected Gram Pradhan i.e. present
petitioner. On receiving this complaint, the
Officer, authorized by the State Government
conducted an enquiry into the matter. The
procedure as to what has to be done under
these conditions is given in Rule 3 of Uttar
Pardesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of
Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1997"). Rule 3 of Rules 1997
reads as under :-
"3. Procedure relating to complaints:- (1) Any person making a complaint against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan may sent his complaint to the State Government or any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government- (2) Every complaint referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by the complainant's own affidavit in support thereof and also affidavits of all persons from whom he claims to have received information of facts relating to the accusation, verified before a notary, together with all documents in his possession or power pertaining to the accusation. (3) Every complaint and affidavit under this rule as well as any schedule or annexure thereto shall be verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the verification of pleadings and affidavits, respectively. (4) Not less than three copies of the complaint as well as of each of its annexure shall be submitted by the complainant. (5) A complaint which does not comply with any of the foregoing provisions of this rules shall not be entertained. (6) It shall be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in the foregoing provisions of this rule if a complaints against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is made by a public servant."
Rule 3 (5) of the Rules of 1997 provides
that a complaint, which does not comply with
any of the foregoing provision of this rule,
shall not be entertained. An exception has
been carved out in Rule 3 (6) of the Rules of
1997 provides that it shall not be necessary to file affidavit as required under Rule 3 (2)
of the Rules of 1997 if it is made by a public
In the present case respondent No. 6 and others, who moved a complaint are not
public servant, hence, it was a mandatory requirement under the law that the complaint
must be duly accompanied with an affidavit.
There was evidently no affidavit here. In
view of the complaint, the Chief Development Officer ordered for enquiry on
12.07.2010 to District Development Officer.
(3.) ONE of the contentions of the petitioner is that under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1997
'Enquiry Officer' means the District
Panchayat Raj Officer or any other district
level Officer, to be nominated by the District Magistrate. However, this amendment
was brought only on 5th October, 2001 in
the State of Uttara Pradesh. In the earlier unamended provision of Rule 2(c) of the Rules
of 1997 reads as under:-
"2. Definitions - In these rules unless the context otherwise requires- (a).......... (b).......... (c) 'Enquiry Officer' means the District Panchayat Raj Officer or any other district level Officer, to be nominated by the District Magistrate." ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.