(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 :
(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.