B. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was elected to the office of Adhyaksha (Chairperson), Zila Panchayat, Allahabad in the elections held in November, 2000, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 30th July, 2005 (Annexture -15) passed by the respondent State Government removing the petitioner from her office on the basis of alleged charges which the State Government contends to have been proved against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called the '1961 Act') read with the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up -Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter called the '1997 Rules'). Haunted and hotly pursued by her rival political opponents, the petitioner contends that the impugned order is a result of political motivation and is a complete mala fide exercise of power in violation of the provisions of the 1961 Act and 1997 Rules, referred to hereinabove.
(2.) THE petition was entertained and affidavits were invited on behalf of the respondents. An impleadment application was also moved by one Shri Ashok Kumar Dubey, Upadhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Allahabad, who claims to be officiating as Adhyaksha upon the removal of the petitioner. We have heard Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri A. K. Mishra for the petitioner, Shri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent -State and Shri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri R. S. Mishra for Shri Ashok Kumar Dubey, who has sought impleadment in the present writ petition. FACTUAL MATRIX : The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was elected as a Chairperson of Zila Panchayat, Allahabad in the elections held in November, 2000. The tenure of the office is till November, 2005. One Smt. Uma Devi Yadav who had lost the election against the petitioner and belonged to the rival political party, submitted a complaint dated 27.9.2003 (Annexure -1) to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh levelling large number of allegations against the petitioner, and requested for holding an inquiry against her on the said charges. The said complaint was processed and the District Magistrate, Allahabad, was directed to hold a preliminary inquiry vide order dated 18.10.2003. The District Magistrate, Allahabad, further appointed a Committee of four -officers working under him, to hold an inquiry against the petitioner on the said charges with a direction to submit the report to him, vide order dated 9.12.2003 (Annexure -2) within a period of one week. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Committee consisting of the said four officers, and the report was submitted. The District Magistrate then sent the report on 19.3.2004 to the State Government, and the latter placing reliance upon the said preliminary inquiry report issued a show cause notice dated 16.4.2004 (Annexure -3) to the petitioner to furnish an explanation within a period of two weeks. As the petitioner was busy contesting the election for the Parliament seat from Phoolpur Constituency and had filed her nomination on 12.4.2004, she asked the State Authorities to extend the time for furnishing the explanation vide letter dated 19.5.2004 (Annexure -4). She had been continuously writing to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, for supplying her the documents as the record of her office had been taken away by the officers holding the preliminary inquiry, as is evident from the letter dated 28.5.2004 (Annexure -5). One more complaint was filed by Shri Kaji Mojjam, a Member of the Zila Panchayat, Allahabad. It could not be processed as it was not in a proper form as required under the statutory rules but it appears that a copy of the said complaint was also sent to the Inquiry Officer. Subsequently, without sending any reply to the letters/notices written by the petitioner for extending the time or supplying the documents so that she could prepare the reply to the show cause, the respondent -authorities passed an order dated 19th June, 2004, (Annexure -6) depriving her of her right to exercise financial and administrative powers and a three -Member Committee was appointed for that purpose which included Smt. Uma Devi Yadav, the complainant who had lost the elections. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 23352 of 2004 challenging the order dated 19th June, 2004, wherein this Court vide order dated 1st July, 2004 (Annexure -7) granted an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 19th June, 2004 till further orders. The State Government preferred Special Appeal No. 556 of 2004 against the order of the learned single Judge dated 1st July, 2004, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 12.7.2004 (Annexure -8). The petitioner approached the Hon'ble Apex Court, by filing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14713 of 2004, wherein the Court vide order dated 6.8.2004 (Annexure -9) stayed the operation of the judgment and order dated 12.7.2004. Subsequently, the Apex Court granted leave in the matter vide order dated 3.12.2004 (Annexure -10) and the matter is still pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court the petitioner continued to perform her duties in the office as a Chairperson of Zila Panchayat, Allahabad. She had been continuously asking the State Authorities to furnish the documents so that she could file the reply, as is evident from the letters dated 17.5.2004 and 19.5.2004 (Annexure -11), 3.9.2004 and 25.11.2004 (Annexure -12). The Divisional Commissioner, Allahabad, the inquiry officer sent the charge -sheet dated 9.8.2004 and asked the petitioner to submit her reply. She submitted the reply (Annexure -13) in the absence of the copies of the documents asked for by her which had not been furnished.
(3.) ON the basis of the preliminary inquiry report, the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge -sheet and taking into consideration some other material and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to participate further in the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report to the State Government on 30.12.2004. The State Authorities were not satisfied in the manner the findings had been recorded by the Inquiry Officer at least in respect of certain charges. The State Authorities therefore vide letter dated 7th May, 2005 (Annexure -14) sought clarification from the Inquiry Officer on four charges. Ultimately, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 30th July, 2005 (Annexure -15), removing the petitioner from the office. Hence this petition. Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in a democratic set up neither the bureaucrats nor the State Authorities are supposed to conduct an inquiry in such an arbitrary manner and in utter disregard to the statutory provisions enacted for this purpose. After commencement of the provisions of Part IX and IX -A in the Constitution which had been brought by amendment, a constitutional status has been conferred upon the Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat, and the petitioner could not be removed in such a unceremonious manner. More so, the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer was not sufficient even to remove a temporary Class IV employee on the allegation of misconduct. The statutory rules which are mandatory in nature have not been followed. The inquiry stood vitiated from the very beginning itself. The first complainant had been the rival of the petitioner who had lost the election by 12 votes. None of the complaints were in consonance with the statutory rules nor they were addressed to the Statutory Authority as provided under the Rules. The respondents could not initiate any regular inquiry on such a complaint. Charges have not been framed precisely and inquiry cannot be conducted on vague charges against the petitioner. The authority did not consider her explanation before recording the findings on the charges. The State did not agree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on certain charges, and proceeded to pass the order without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain. The copy of the inquiry report was not served upon her. The matter of depriving the petitioner of her right to exercise administrative and financial powers is still pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as before this Court. Under no circumstances the authorities could have continued with the inquiry, even if there is no interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. Neither the Inquiry Officer nor the State Government addressed itself to the charges levelled against the petitioner, nor considered her explanation before recording the findings. The petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 30th July, 2005, is liable to be quashed.;