- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Smt. Somwati, the petitioner, in the present writ petition is assailing the validity of order dated 20. 8. 2008 passed by District Magistrate, Bareilly, proceeding to seize financial as well as administrative powers of 5 Pradhan of the village and constituting three member committee to look after the functions of Pradhan.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to instant writ petition, are that petitioner was elected as Pradhan of village Angadpur Khamariya, Block Bhuta, District Bareilly. On account of irregularities being committed by petitioner, qua her functioning as Pradhan, show cause notice was issued to her on 1. 2. 2008. Petitioner submitted her reply on 24. 3. 2008. Order was passed mentioning therein that preliminary enquiry was got conducted by Assistant Engineer (Minor Irrigation) and petitioner had been found guilty, as such in exercise of authority under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, her financial as well as administrative powers were to be seized and three member enquiry committee was to be constituted. Against the said order, petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16727 of 2008. This Court on 31. 3. 2008 passed following order: The nature of charge namely inefficiency of explanation of Rs. 15,44/- for the construction of drain, the distribution in mid day meal, misuse of Rs. 1,000/- in scholarship and the construction of toilets, do not appear to be such that in view of the explanation submitted by the petitioner the suspension of administrative and financial power was necessary in the enquiry under Section 95 (1) (g)of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 24. 3. 2008 passed by District Magistrate, Bareilly shall remain stayed. The formal enquiry will be conducted expeditiously. " Petitioner submits that pursuant thereto, formal enquiry was to be got conducted in the matter. Thereafter, three member committee conducted enquiry and submitted report. After the said report was submitted, notice was issued-to petitioner on 18. 6. 2008, mentioning therein that pursuant to order passed on 31. 3. 2008 by this Court, vide order dated 16. 4. 2008 three member committee was constituted for final enquiry into the matter and the said Committee on 1. 5. 2008 went on the spot and submitted its report. Based on the said report, vide order dated 18. 6. 2008, petitioner was asked to show cause as to why she should not be removed from the post of Pradhan and in case reply was not submitted within 10 days, appropriate orders would be issued. Petitioner submits that she submit ted her reply on 26. 7. 2008 along with enclosures running into 26 pages. Thereaf ter, order has been passed on 20. 8. 2008, which is subject matter of challenge in present writ petition. Sri R. K. Ojha, Advocate, appearing along with Sri S. K. Pandey, Advocate, contended with vehemence that final enquiry was already conducted in the mat ter and show cause notice was also issued in respect of removal, to which reply was submitted, then this order under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, could not have been passed, as has been done in the present case, as such order impugned is liable to be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that rightful action has been taken and as such no interference be made. After respective augments have been advanced, the factual position which emerges is that in the present case earlier on 24. 3. 2008 order was passed by District Magistrale, Bareilly, mentioning therein that in preliminary enquiry so undertaken by Assistant Engineer (Minor Irrigation), petitioner had been found guilty, as such in exercise of authority under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were to be seized and three member committee was to be constituted. Said order was challenged before this Court and this Court on 31. 3. 2008 passed order staying effect and operation of said order. However, it was observed that formal enquiry be concluded expeditiously. Thereafter, pursuant to said order dated 31. 3. 2008, three member committee conducted enquiry and submitted report on 1. 5. 2008. On the basis of the said report, District Magistrate, Bareilly issued show cause notice to petitioner on 18. 6. 2008. It is true that within 10 days reply was not submitted, as petitioner had asked for certain documents. However, re ply was submitted on 26. 7. 2008. The order dated 20. 8. 2008 proceeds to mention that petitioner had not submitted reply within the stipulated period. Once reply was submitted by petitioner before 20. 8. 2008 and same was available on record, then reply ought to have been considered by the District Magistrate, instead of proceeding to mention that reply was not submitted within time. Once at the point of time of passing order, reply in question was available on record, then the Dis trict Magistrate ought to have considered the said reply, instead of ignoring the same. Order dated 20. 8. 2008, thus contravenes the principles of natural justice.;