# C-24776 Prathvi Raj Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru' Secy. Min. of Home Affairs U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 608
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-13
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-24776-prathvi-raj-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-min-of-home-affairs-u-p-and-42228
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article-226Dismissal order-challenged on ground of
disproportionate punishment-petitioner
found guilty for unauthorized absent
from duty-but also guilty for refusal of
duty
inspite
of
request
of
Guard
Commander-left the SLR Rifle with 50
bullets-in
disciplinary
force
such
conduct-not
tolerable-punishment
of
dismissal
neither
excessive
nor
shocking-warrants no interference.

Held: Para 21

Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the view that the
punishment of dismissal awarded to the
petitioner was one of the possible
punishment that could be awarded to
him
considering
the
nature
of
his
conduct and the fact that he was a
member
of
a
uniformed
service,
accordingly, it is not permissible for me
to interfere with the same in exercise of
power of judicial review.
Case law discussed:
(2012) 3 SCC 178; [2003 (2) LBESR 947 (All)];
AIR 1994 SC 215; (2003) 3 SCC 309; (2010)
11 SCC 314

## Text

608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

21. In view of above discussion, in my
view, the impugned award of Labour Court
cannot sustain. The writ petition is allowed.
The award dated 31st October, 1996
(Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) passed
by Labour Court (5), U.P. Kanpur in
Adjudication Case No.64/1990 is hereby set
aside.

22. No order as to costs.

23. However, the benefit, if any, with
respect to the salary etc. if already given to
the workman concerned, the petitioner shall
not recover the same.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 19875 of 2004

C-24776 Prathvi Raj Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru' Secy. Min. of Home
Affairs U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shyam Ji Gaur
Sri Shyam Narain
Sri Sudhanshu Narain
Sri Gopal Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article-226Dismissal order-challenged on ground of
disproportionate punishment-petitioner
found guilty for unauthorized absent
from duty-but also guilty for refusal of
duty
inspite
of
request
of
Guard
Commander-left the SLR Rifle with 50
bullets-in
disciplinary
force
such
conduct-not
tolerable-punishment
of
dismissal
neither
excessive
nor
shocking-warrants no interference.

Held: Para 21

Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the view that the
punishment of dismissal awarded to the
petitioner was one of the possible
punishment that could be awarded to
him
considering
the
nature
of
his
conduct and the fact that he was a
member
of
a
uniformed
service,
accordingly, it is not permissible for me
to interfere with the same in exercise of
power of judicial review.
Case law discussed:
(2012) 3 SCC 178; [2003 (2) LBESR 947 (All)];
AIR 1994 SC 215; (2003) 3 SCC 309; (2010)
11 SCC 314

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.)

1. I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and the standing counsel for
the respondents and have perused the
record.
As
pleadings
have
been
exchanged, with the consent of the
counsel for the parties, the petition is
being finally disposed of at the admission
stage.

2. By this writ petition, the
petitioner, who was a Constable in the
Provincial
Armed
Constabulary,
has
challenged the dismissal order dated
21.07.2000, as also the appellate order of
affirmance dated 28.02.2001, passed by
the Commandant, 20th Battalion, P.A.C.,
Azamgarh and the Deputy Inspector
General,
P.A.C.,
Varanasi
Range,
Varanasi respectively.

3. The facts, in brief, are that while
the petitioner was posted as a Constable at
20th Battalion, P.A.C., Azamgarh in the
year 2000, he was served with a chargesheet dated 16.3.2000 wherein it was
2 All] C-24776 Prathvi Raj Sharma V. State of U.P. and others
609
alleged that while the petitioner was
posted as constable at 20th battalion PAC,
Azamgarh, in the night of 8.1.2000, he
was assigned guard-duty along with chief
guard Bir Bahadur Singh for the first
night shift starting from 20.00 hrs to
24.00 hrs. During the course of duty, it
was alleged, at about 20.30 hrs, the
petitioner refused to perform his duty
despite request of the guard commander,
and left the place of duty, after leaving the
SLR rifle and 50 rounds of bullets,
without the permission of the competent
authority,
and
thereafter
remained
unauthorisedly absent for 11 days, 14
hours and 10 minutes up to 19.1.2000. As
a result, the petitioner was charged for
violation of the orders, and for gross
dereliction of duties. For ready reference,
the charge levelled against the petitioner
as quoted in the enquiry report, which has
been enclosed with the writ petition as
Annexure No.1, is being reproduced
below:-

" fd vki tc o"kZ 2000 esa vkj{kh ds in ij
,p-,y 20oha okfguh ih-,l-lhvktex<+ esa fu;qDr Fks
vkSj okfguh fM;wVh esa dk;Zjr Fks rks fnukad 8-1-2000
dks vkidh fM;wVh okfguh ifjlj esa ,fj;k izFke ds
izFke flIV esa le; 20-00 ls 2400 cts rd eq[;
vkj{kh chj cgknqj flag eq[;ky; 'kk[kk ds lkFk
yxh Fkh rks le; 20-30 cts okfguh jk'ku 'kki ds
ikl fM;wVh ds nkSjku xknZ dek.Mj ds le>kus ds
ckn Hkh vkius fM;wVh djus ls bUdkj fd;k vkSj
,l0,y0vkj0 0,oa0 oky j[kdj fM;wVh NksM+dj
fcuk fdlh vuqefr] vuqKk] vodk'k ds okfguh
Qseyh xsV ls le; 21-30 cts okfguh ls ckgj pys
x;s rFkk Lor% euekus <ax ls viuh bPNk vuqlkj
fnukad 19-1-2000 dks okfguh eq[;ky; esa vkxeu
fd;s bl izdkj vki viuh fu;r fM;wVh dks NksM+dj
11 fnol 14 ?k.Vk] 10 feuV vukf/kd`r :i ls
vuqifLFkr jgdj okfguh esa vkxeu fd;sA bl izdkj
vki vkns'k dh vogsyuk ,oa vius drZO; dk fuoZgu
djus esa iw.kZ :is.k foQy jgus ds nks"kh gS"

4. On the aforesaid allegations,
enquiry was held wherein nine witnesses
were examined to prove the allegations
leveled
against
the
petitioner.
The
petitioner also examined two witnesses,
namely, Mohan Kumar Mishra and Ajay
Kumar Singh so as to prove that in the
night of 08.01.2000 he had received a
telephone call from his native village at
district Gautambudh Nagar, as a result of
which, he had to rush back to his native
place for sorting out some urgent matters.
The enquiry officer after considering the
evidence led against the petitioner, as well
as the defense evidence, found the
allegations against the petitioner proved,
and with respect to his defense came to
the conclusion that although it was proved
that some telephone call had come from
the residence of the petitioner but it could
not be proved that the matter was so
urgent that the petitioner could not have
waited for obtaining proper leave so as to
go to his residence. In the enquiry it was
also proved that the petitioner had left the
SLR Rifle and 50 Rounds of Bullets with
the other Guard, who was on duty with
the petitioner, without depositing at the
right place.

5. After concluding the enquiry, the
enquiry officer submitted his report on
17.06.2000, thereby finding the petitioner
guilty of the charges. On the said report, a
show cause notice along with the enquiry
report was issued to the petitioner, on
28.06.2000, thereby inviting explanation
from him as to why he should not be
dismissed from service on the proven
charges.

6. In absence of any reply from the
petitioner to the show cause notice, the
Commandant, 20th Battalion, P.A.C.,
Azamgarh by his order dated 21.7.2000
dismissed the petitioner from service.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Deputy
Inspector
General,
P.A.C.,
Varanasi Range, Varanasi.

7. In his appeal, the petitioner stated
that on the fateful night a phone call had
come
from
his
residence
which
necessitated immediate journey of the
petitioner to his native village, therefore,
the petitioner after informing the Guard
Commander, who directed the petitioner
to deposit the rifle and the bullets with the
Constable next in duty namely, Mohan
Kumar Mishra, left the station and since it
was late night, he could not get in touch
with any officer for seeking leave. He
further stated that there was no willful
absenting from duty, therefore, his case
may be viewed sympathetically, and that
he may be pardoned for the mistake.

8. The appellate authority affirmed
the order of dismissal with observation
that the police force is a disciplined force
and since the petitioner left the station
during the course of his duty, without
informing or seeking permission from the
competent authority, and also by leaving
his weapon and the bullets in the custody
of a fellow constable without making any
attempt to deposit the same with a
competent
authority,
there
was
no
occasion to view the misconduct of the
petitioner in a sympathetic manner.

9. Aggrieved by the order of
rejection of the appeal, the petitioner has
filed this petition. The stamp reporter
reported that the petition was delayed by
1074 days. The petitioner sought to
explain the delay by stating that he was in
a penurious condition and could not
earlier manage money to meet the
expenses required for filing a writ
petition.

10. Initially, on 21.05.2004, this
petition was dismissed on the ground that
no one had appeared to press the petition,
as also for lack of cogent explanation with
regard to the delay of 1074 days reported
by the stamp reporter. However, this order
was recalled on 28.04.2006 and the
petition was restored. Later, it appears,
that the petitioner filed a supplementary
affidavit,
on
31.07.2006,
thereby
enclosing two documents, namely, a
memorial dated 09.02.2004 addressed to
the Governor against the order of the
appellate authority and a letter dated
01.01.2005 disclosing that the memorial
was rejected as not maintainable. In the
aforesaid background, I am of the view
that the petitioner was pursuing his cause,
therefore, cannot be held to be guilty of
laches.

11. Coming to the merit of the case,
the counsel for the petitioner has not
seriously challenged the findings recorded
by the enquiry officer or the manner in
which the enquiry was held. The only
ground pressed by the counsel for the
petitioner was that the order of dismissal
was shockingly disproportionate to the
charges leveled against the petitioner. He
contended that in the enquiry it was
proved that there was a phone call from
his native village, which demanded
immediate presence of the petitioner at his
native village, therefore, it could not be
said that the absence of the petitioner was
willful so as to warrant a major penalty of
dismissal. The counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that the absence was
of
about
12
days
only
and
that
immediately after returning from home
the petitioner had submitted a joining
application
thereby
informing
the
authorities that there was a phone call
2 All] C-24776 Prathvi Raj Sharma V. State of U.P. and others
611
informing him of some quarrel relating to
his house and land, therefore, he had to
rush back to his home. The petitioner's
counsel has placed reliance on a judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of
KRUSHNAKANT B. PARMAR V.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178. In addition
to the aforesaid decision, the petitioner
has also relied on the judgment of this
Court in the case of CONSTABLE NO.
850774845,
LALJI
PANDEY
V.
DIRECTOR
GENERAL,
C.R.P.F.,
NEW DELHI & Ors. reported in [2003
(2) LBESR 947 (All)] as well as the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
UNION OF INDIA AND Ors v.
GIRIRAJ SHARMA reported in AIR
1994 SC 215.

12. In the case of Krushnakant B.
Parmar v. Union of India (supra), the
Apex Court, in paragraph Nos. 17, 18 and
19, observed as follows:-

"17. If the absence is the result of
compelling circumstances under which it
was not possible to report or perform
duty, such absence can not be held to be
wilful. Absence from duty without any
application or prior permission may
amount to unauthorised absence, but it
does not always mean wilful. There may
be different eventualities due to which an
employee
may
abstain
from
duty,
including
compelling
circumstances
beyond his control like illness, accident,
hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the
employee cannot be held guilty of failure
of
devotion
to
duty
or
behaviour
unbecoming of a Government servant.

18. In a departmental proceeding, if
allegation of unauthorised absence from
duty is made, the disciplinary authority is
required to prove that the absence is
wilful, in absence of such finding, the
absence will not amount to misconduct.

19. In the present case the Inquiry
Officer on appreciation of evidence
though held that the appellant was
unauthorisedly absent from duty but
failed to hold the absence is wilful; the
disciplinary
authority
as
also
the
Appellate Authority, failed to appreciate
the same and wrongly held the appellant
guilty."

13. Relying upon the aforesaid
observations of the Apex Court, the
counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
the
instant
case
also
there
were
compelling circumstances justifying the
immediate movement of the petitioner
from the place of his duty to his residence
and, therefore, it could not be said that the
absence of the petitioner was willful. The
counsel
for
the
petitioner
further
submitted that the charge against the
petitioner of leaving the SLR Rifle with
50 rounds of Bullets cannot be said to be
totally established inasmuch as admittedly
the petitioner had left the Rifle and the
Bullets in the custody of a fellow
Constable and it is not that the Rifle and
the Bullets were left abandoned.

14. On the basis of the above
submissions, the counsel for the petitioner
stated that the punishment of dismissal
was shockingly disproportionate and the
ends of justice would be served if the
petitioner
is
awarded
some
minor
punishment.

15. Per contra, the Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents submitted
that the police force, and in particular the
Armed Police Force, is a disciplined force
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
where refusal to perform duty would be a
serious misconduct. He submitted that the
petitioner was not only charged with
absence from duty, but was also charged
with refusal to perform duty, which has
been proved in the enquiry report. If the
charge had been only for remaining
absent from duty, then the punishment of
dismissal could have been challenged on
ground
of
being
disproportionate.
However, since the charge in the present
case was not only of absence from duty
but also of refusal to perform duty,
therefore, the punishment of dismissal
cannot be said to be disproportionate.

16.

Having
considered
the
submissions of the parties and having
gone through the record, I find that the
charge proved against the petitioner is not
simply that of abstaining or absenting
from duty, but is also that of refusal to
perform duty, which was assigned to the
petitioner in the night of 8.1.2000. It has
been proved that the petitioner while on
duty, despite request from the guard
commander, refused to continue with his
duty and left the place after leaving his
weapon and the bullets in the presence of
his fellow constable on duty. Once the
enquiry officer upheld the charge of
refusal to perform duty coupled with
absence from duty, that too by a member
of the Police Armed Constabulary, which
is a disciplined force, the punishment of
dismissal from service cannot be said to
grossly disproportionate. The judgment of
the
Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of
India (supra) has to be considered in the
light of the facts of that case, as would be
evident from paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and
14 of the said judgment, which are being
reproduced below:-

"12. The records suggest that on
11th
August,
1995,
the
appellant
requested the respondents to transfer him
from Palanpur to any nearest place at
Ahmedabad or Nadiad or Anand which
was accepted by respondents and an
order of transfer was issued by the
respondents on 21-8-1995 transferring
the appellant to the office of DCIO,
Nadiad with immediate effect. On 25-81995, the Joint Assistant Director, SIB
ordered to release the appellant from
Palanpur to join duty at Nadiad with
effect from 31-8-1995. In view of such
order the appellant was relieved and
joined at Nadiad. However, the order of
transfer was cancelled by the respondents
on 4-9-1995 and he was transferred at a
distance place which was challenged by
him before the Central Administrative
Tribunal.

13. After cancellation of the order of
transfer the appellant sent a complaint on
18-9-1995 before the authorities that the
DCIO, Palanpur, Mr. P. Venkateswarlu
was not allowing him to join duty. The
order of transfer was challenged by him
before
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Ahmedabad
alleging
bias
against
Mr.
Venkateswarlu,
DCIO,
Palanpur, in-charge of the office which
was
accepted
by
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal and the order of
transfer
was
set
aside.
Thereafter
appellant joined duty on 11-12-1995 and
proceeded on leave for 11 days due to
illness of his father.

14. The Inquiry Officer noticed the
aforesaid facts and held the appellant was
unauthorisedly absent between 3-10-1995
and 7-11-1995; 9-11-1995 and 10-121995;
10-12-1995
and
2-8-1995.
However,
while
coming
to
such
2 All] C-24776 Prathvi Raj Sharma V. State of U.P. and others
613
contention, the authority failed to decide
whether such absence amounted to
misconduct. The evidence led by the
appellant in support of his claim that he
was prevented to sign the attendance
register and to perform duty though
noticed
the
Inquiry
Officer
on
presumption and surmises, held the
charge proved."

17. So far as the judgments in the
cases of CONSTABLE NO. 850774845,
LALJI
PANDEY
V.
DIRECTOR
GENERAL, C.R.P.F., NEW DELHI &
Ors. (supra) and UNION OF INDIA
AND
Ors
v.
GIRIRAJ
SHARMA(supra) are concerned, the
facts were different. There the incumbent
had gone on a sanctioned leave and had
remained
unauthorisedly
absent
by
overstaying the period of leave. Whereas
in the instant case the petitioner had not
only refused to perform night duty for
which he was provided with a Rifle and
50 rounds of bullets, but, in spite of
request by the Guard Commander, left his
Rifle with 50 rounds of bullets and
proceeded
to
leave
station
without
obtaining permission or leave from the
competent authority. Such being the fact,
the conduct of the petitioner reflected
gross indiscipline and in a uniformed
service, such as in the case of the
petitioner, it could justify imposition of a
major punishment including that of
dismissal.

18. The Apex Court in the case of
Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and
Ors reported in (2003) 3 SCC 309, dealt
with a similar controversy, as is in the
present case, which would be evident
from paragraph No.3 of the judgment,
which reads as follows:-

"The appellant was appointed as
Constable in the Railway Protection
Special Force on 16.4.1978. Disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against him by
issuing notice under Section 9(1) of the
Railway Protection Force Act 1957 (in
short 'the Act') read with Rule 44 of the
Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (in
short 'the Rules'). Gravamen of charge
against him was that he had left duties as
well as the Tarantaran Station without
permission. He was detailed with others
for Quarter Guard cum Station Static
Guard duty on 22.5.1987. At about 11:25
hrs. he asked the Guard Commander to
keep his arms and ammunition telling that
he was proceeding home. The Guard
Commander asked him not to go without
permission. But disobeying the orders, he
left his duty as well as the Station
Tarantaran without any permission. This
was
considered
to
be
an
act
of
indiscipline and carelessness in duty. His
defence was that he was required to
attend the wedding of his brother-in- law
and, therefore, he had to leave the Station
in any case. It was further stated by him
that he asked the Inspector in-charge that
Adjutant had assured him about grant of
leave, but the Inspector in-charge refused
to grant leave. Faced with this situation
he had to leave with a view to keep his
family commitments. It was also stated by
him that he had handed over his arms and
ammunition for safe custody. He returned
after 25 days for which he had asked for
leave. The authorities on completion of
the disciplinary proceedings found that
the charge was proved and penalty from
removal from service was awarded."

The Apex Court while considering
the quantum of punishment in the said
case, in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the
judgment, observed as under:-
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

"9. The only other plea is regarding
punishment
awarded.
As
has
been
observed in a series of cases, the scope of
interference with punishment awarded by
a disciplinary authority is very limited
and unless the punishment appears to be
shockingly disproportionate, the Court
cannot interfere with the same. Reference
may be made to a few of them. See: B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors.,
[1995] 6 SCC 749, State of U.P. and Ors.
v. Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr., [1996]
1 SCC 302. Union of India and Anr. v.
G. Ganayutham, [1997] 7 SCC 463;
Union of India V. J.R. Dhiman, [1999] 6
SCC 403 and Om Kumar and Ors. v.
Union of India, [2001] 2 SCC 386.

10. We find from the factual position,
which is undisputed that the appellant
was posted at Tarantaran in Punjab, a
terrorist affected area and was, at the
relevant time, working in the Railway
Protection' Special Force. Any act of
indiscipline of such an employee cannot
be lightly taken. In Ashok Kumar Singh's
case supra, the employee was a police
constable and it was held that act of
indiscipline by such a person needs to be
dealt with sternly. As noted by the
Division Bench of the High Court, penalty
of removal of service is statutorily
prescribed. It is for the employee
concerned to show that how penalty was
disproportionate to the proved charges.
No mitigating circumstance has been
placed by the appellant to show, as to
how
the
punishment
could
be
characterized as disproportionate and/or
shocking. On the contrary as established
in
the
discipline
proceedings,
the
appellant left the arms and ammunition
unguarded and not in any proper custody.
This
aggravated
the
aberrations.
Therefore, the order of removal from
service cannot be faulted. There is no
reason to interfere with the orders of the
Division Bench of the High Court."

19. From the record of the instant
case, I find that the petitioner has not been
able to produce sufficient material either
before the enquiry officer or even before
the appellate authority to justify his
refusal to perform duty, as also absenting
from duty, by leaving the station for
journey to his native village, without even
informing or obtaining leave from the
competent authority, as also without
keeping the weapon and the bullets at the
right place. He has not been able to prove
that he was under such compelling
circumstances that there was no option
left for him than to act in the manner in
which he did. The only explanation
provided by the petitioner for such an act
of indiscipline is receipt of a phone call
from the native village demanding his
presence there. The petitioner, despite full
opportunity, has not proved in the enquiry
or even before the appellate authority that
the phone call was in respect of some
death in the family or that the ground was
so urgent that without immediately
rushing to his native village, he could not
have achieved the purpose of his journey,
or that somebody was so grievously
injured or ill that if he had not reached
immediately, things could have gone
beyond control or repair. In fact, the
enquiry officer in his report has recorded
a finding to the effect that although the
petitioner has been able to prove that
there was a phone call from his native
village, but he had failed to prove the
urgency
for
leaving
the
station
immediately, in the manner that he did. In
the given circumstances, I do not find any
mitigating factor which may suggest that
the punishment awarded to the petitioner
2 All] Smt. Bhajno Devi V. State of U.P. and others
615
was
so
shockingly
disproportionate,
which could be interfered with in exercise
of power under the writ jurisdiction of
this court.

20. It would be necessary to note
that while judicially reviewing an order of
punishment imposed upon a delinquent
employee the writ court would not assume
the role of an appellate authority. The
Apex Court in the case of Charanjit
Lamba v. Commanding Officer, Army
Southern Command, reported in (2010)
11 SCC 314, in paragraph No.20,
observed as follows:-

"What is clear is that while judicially
reviewing
an
order
of
punishment
imposed upon a delinquent employee the
writ court would not assume the role of an
appellate authority. It would not impose a
lesser punishment merely because it
considers the same to be more reasonable
than what the disciplinary authority has
imposed. It is only in cases where the
punishment is so disproportionate to the
gravity of charge that no reasonable
person placed in the position of the
disciplinary authority could have imposed
such a punishment that a writ court may
step in to interfere with same."

21. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that the punishment of dismissal
awarded to the petitioner was one of the
possible
punishment
that
could
be
awarded to him considering the nature of
his conduct and the fact that he was a
member
of
a
uniformed
service,
accordingly, it is not permissible for me to
interfere with the same in exercise of
power of judicial review.

22. For the reasons aforesaid, the
petition lacks merit and is here by
dismissed.

23. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20611 of 2012

Smt. Bhajno Devi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Secretary and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satish Mandhyan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947, Section 95
(1) (g)-removal of village in question
reserved for S.C. Women-contention of
petitioner being "Bajgi" in state of
Punjab-a scheduled caste-hence after
marriage in U.P. She became S.C.-heldmisconceived-a
caste
declaration
in
particular category in other state can not
be treated in same writ jurisdictionorder can not be interfered.

Held: Para 6

It is, thus, evident that in view of
admitted facts as stated in para 4 and 5
of writ petition as also exposition of law
as discussed above, the petitioner was
not eligible or entitled to contest the
election of Gram Pradhan of Village
Teep, being not a Scheduled Caste, as
per the notified list of Scheduled Caste in
State of U.P. and therefore her very
election was illegal since its inception,
hence she could have been removed