Vineet Saran - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri R. C. Kushwaha alongwith Mr. Krishna Ji Khare on behalf of the caveator. Learned counsel for the respondent-State that they do not wish to file counter-affidavit and thus, writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.
(2.) THE petitioner is an elected Gram Pradhan. By means of the impugned order dated 6.6.2009, passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been ceased. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order has been passed in gross violation of the provisions of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on some complaint made to the Chief Minister in the year 2007. An enquiry report was submitted on 31.10.2008 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) in which the allegations made against the petitioner were found to be absolutely baseless. Another complaint regarding the same allegations had been made before the District Magistrate by means of an affidavit dated 24.5.2008, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same goes to show that in the very beginning of the affidavit it has been stated that the affidavit is being filed on behalf of the villagers, without giving details of the deponent of the affidavit. In the end it is merely signed by some persons, without even clearly writing their names. THE parentage and the addresses of such signatories have also not been mentioned. It is this affidavit on the basis of which the District Magistrate has initiated proceedings against the petitioner. THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of such a complaint/affidavit no action could have taken place against the petitioner, has force. The procedure for lodging a complaint has been given in Rule 3 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Enquiry Rules clearly provides that the complaint should 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 accusation. In the present case, the alleged affidavit, which has not even been properly sworn, has been considered as a complaint as well as affidavit filed in support thereof. The same, not being in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules cannot be taken as a complaint on the basis of which proceedings could have been initiated. As such the entire proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate on 25.6.2008, directing for enquiry against the petitioner in pursuance of the said complaint, deserves to be quashed. Besides this, the manner in which the enquiry has been got conducted also raise doubts with regard to the fairness of the District Magistrate in getting the enquiry conducted. The enquiry was directed to be conducted by the District Economics and Statistics Officer whereas the enquiry report, which is a simply one page report, bears the signature of the District Social Welfare Officer also, alongwith the District Economics and Statistics Officer as enquiry officers. Further, admittedly the date fixed for enquiry was notified as 25.10.2008 but the enquiry is said to have been conducted on 27.10.2008, on which date the petitioner was not present as she had gone out and thus it was proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. From this it is clear that the enquiry report had been submitted without the petitioner being given any notice of the date fixed.
(3.) FURTHER, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, to which a reply was submitted by her. In the impugned order, all that has been done by the District Magistrate is merely quoting the entire reply and in the end stating that the explanation given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and hence the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges levelled against her. The District Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction as to why the explanation given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. Merely stating that the explanation is not satisfactory, is not sufficient, as the same does not show application of mind by the District Magistrate before passing the impugned order. The petitioner being a democratically elected Pradhan cannot be ousted in an undemocratic manner without following the procedure prescribed. The power to cease the financial and administrative powers of a Gram Pradhan is there with the District Magistrate, but the same has to be exercised with caution and care, in exception case and for valid grounds to be mentioned in the order, based on cogent reasons. The said power is not to be exercised in a routine and casual manner as by exercising such power, the democratically elected Pradhan is virtually denuded of his powers by an administrative order.;