P. N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is the Pradhan of village Kalyanpur Rani, Pargana and Tahsil Atrauli, District Aligarh. Some reports were filed against him. On the basis of these reports a charge-sheet was issued on 5th December, 1973 by the respondent no. 1, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to this petition. A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 12th March, 1974, vide Annexure '2' to this writ petition.
(2.) IT appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer Atrauli called for a report of the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar submitted his report on 17-7-1975, a true copy whereof has been filed as Annexure '3' to this writ petition. Thereafter on 30th July 1975 the petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 1 claiming the right to file objection against the report of the Tahsildar and also praying that he may be permitted to appear through a counsel. This request has been rejected by the respondent no. 1 by Annexure '5' to this writ petition. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been filed. The main ground which has been taken in the writ petition is that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself against the action proposed to be taken. On this ground, it is prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order of respondent no. 1 dated 14th August 1975. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite party no. 1 to decide proceedings against the petitioner under Section 95 (1) (g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the record that in the charge-sheet which was framed against the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer asked him to file a written explanation, if any, and also to indicate whether he desired a personal hearing and to lead evidence. On 30th July, 1975 after the report of the Tahsildar had been received by the Sub-Divisional Officer, an application was filed by the petitioner praying that he be given an opportunity to file an objection to the report of the Tahsildar. An additional prayer was also made on 10-8-75 that he may be. allowed to conduct his case through a counsel, whereupon the impugned order was passed dismissing the application of the petitioner, on the ground that no action had so far been communicated on the basis of Tahsildar's report. The order further went on to say that the petitioner did not disclose as to how he came to know about the Tahsildar's report. This ground is vehemently challenged by the petitioner's counsel. He urges that the dismissal of his application on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order are wholly unjustified. I am in agreement with this submission. It was none of the business of the Sub-Divisional Officer to make observation that since the petitioner had not disclosed as to how he came to know about the Tahsildar's report, therefore he was not to be permitted to reply to the allegations which had been made in the report. A vigilent client always attempts to take speedy steps as for as possible. The petitioner, in my opinion, deserves credit for his alertness. No reason for rejecting his application has been given. Further non-communication to the petitioner of any action on the basis of Tahsildar's report could not justify the rejection of his application. The application of the petitioner for an opportunity to file an objection and to engage a counsel should be properly considered. It may be mentioned here that no provision has been shown in Panchayat Raj Act which prohibits the engagement of counsel in proceedings under Section 95(1) (g) of the Act. As such I am not inclined to agree with the reasoning of the Sub-Divisional Officer, that the petitioner has no right to be represented by counsel. The principle of natural justice entails several considerations, one of which may be an engagement of counsel who could properly scrutinise the case of the petitioner and properly present it before the court concerned.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State argued on the basis of decision reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court, p. 1689, that the petitioner has no absolute right to engage a counsel. In my opinion, each case has to be judged on its own facts. The facts of the case of the Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of this case. The impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is erroneous, perverse and illegal. The charge-sheet itself indicates that the petitioner was directed to inform the authority concerned whether he wanted a personal hearing or desired to produce evidence in respect of his defence. The petitioner replied that he wanted to be represented by a counsel. I see no reason how this prayer should be rejected particularly at this stage. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that it was highly unfair and unjust that the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order against the petitioner without giving adequate opportunity in accordance with law, to defend himself.;