# Smt. Pushpa v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 112
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60813 of 2013
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-pushpa-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42883
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Rules 1997-Rule-6- After receiving reply on
show cause notice-without chargesheetwithout holding enquiry as per Rule 6
removal of Pradhan by exercising power
under section 95(i)(g)-held-illegal-provision
of rule 6 are mandatory requirement-non
compliance-order impugned-not sustainable.

Held: Para-9
Since no charges were framed against the
petitioner nor any inquiry was made in
accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of
1997, which is a mandatory requirement,
the
impugned
order
dated
8.10.2013
removing the petitioner under Section
95(1)(g) of the Act was wholly illegal and in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
The impugned order cannot be sustained
and is quashed. The writ petition No.60813
of 2013 is allowed.

## Text

112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
document has been placed on record by
petitioners showing that when such standards
were sought to be criticized being extra hard
and inhuman, an officer in the rank of Director
General of Police in Rajasthan, who was above
the age of 55 years, himself ran twice and
completed 10 kilometers run in 47 and 51
minutes respectively. Instead of giving answer
on paper he offered demonstration to show that
this is quite reasonable. When a person above
the age of 55 years can achieve it, there is no
question that the candidates who are aspiring
for police carrier and young, should not be able
to achieve. I am not going into the merits of
amendment made by 5th Amendment Rules,
2013 but my observations in this regard made
above are only to the extent they were
necessary for meeting rival submissions.

65. Looking to the matter from
various angles and also in the light of
above discussions, in my view, the
impugned orders cannot sustain. The writ
petitions deserve to be allowed.

66. In the result, all the three writ
petitions
are
allowed.
The
impugned
Government Order dated 03.09.2013 and the
consequential order dated 24.09.2013 are
hereby quashed. The respondents are
directed to complete recruitment of 2011 for
the posts of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and
Platoon Commander (Provincial Armed
Constabulary) pursuant to advertisement
dated 19.05.2011, commencing from the
stage it was, in accordance with rules as they
stood before 5th Amendment Rules, 2013,
expeditiously, but not later than three months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order before the respondentscompetent authority.

67. However, the parties shall bear
their own costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60813 of 2013
alongwith
W.P. No. 31474 of 2013

Smt. Pushpa... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, Sri Sudhir Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Panchayat Raj-Removal of Pradhan
and U.P. Pradhan and Members-Enquiry
Rules 1997-Rule-6- After receiving reply on
show cause notice-without chargesheetwithout holding enquiry as per Rule 6
removal of Pradhan by exercising power
under section 95(i)(g)-held-illegal-provision
of rule 6 are mandatory requirement-non
compliance-order impugned-not sustainable.

Held: Para-9
Since no charges were framed against the
petitioner nor any inquiry was made in
accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of
1997, which is a mandatory requirement,
the
impugned
order
dated
8.10.2013
removing the petitioner under Section
95(1)(g) of the Act was wholly illegal and in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
The impugned order cannot be sustained
and is quashed. The writ petition No.60813
of 2013 is allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.P.S.Chauhan and Sri
Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
1 All] Smt. Pushpa Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
113

2. The instant case discloses the
manner in which the State authorities
have thrown caution to the wind and have
patently misused the provisions of the
U.P.
Panchayat
Raj
(Removal
of
Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members)
Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred
to 'Rules of 1997') in passing orders
ceasing the financial and administrative
powers of the Pradhan and thereafter
removing him under Section 95(1)(g) of
the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The manner
in which the two orders have been passed
are in gross violation of the provisions of
Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1997.

3. The petitioner was elected as the
Pradhan and was discharging her duties.
Certain persons, being aggrieved, filed a
complaint on the basis of which a preliminary
inquiry was instituted under Rule 3 of the
Rules of 1997. A preliminary inquiry report
was submitted indicating that the petitioner
had not carried out the work in the right
earnest and that she had misappropriated
certain amount. Based on this preliminary
inquiry report, a show cause notice, dated
24.4.2013, was issued. The petitioner gave a
reply. The District Magistrate rejected the
reply, on the short ground, that the reply was
not found satisfactory and without recording
any reason as to whether the petitioner, prima
facie, had misappropriated any amount issued
an
order
ceasing
the
financial
and
administrative powers. The petitioner, being
aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2013, filed
writ petition No.31474 of 2013, which was
entertained and an interim order dated
30.5.2013 was passed staying the impugned
order, leaving it open to the District
Magistrate to conclude the final inquiry under
Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997.

4. Pursuant to the order of the Writ
Court, a final inquiry under Section 6 was
purported to be held. It transpires that an
inquiry
officer
was
appointed
who
submitted an inquiry report on 22.7.2013
and, based on this inquiry report, a show
cause notice dated 26.7.2013 was issued
to which the petitioner responded and
filed a reply. The District Magistrate
thereafter passed the impugned order
dated 8.10.2013 removing the petitioner
from the post of Pradhan under Section
95(1)(g) of the Act. The petitioner, being
aggrieved by the said order, filed writ
petition No.60813 of 2013, which was
entertained and the Court directed the
respondents to file a counter affidavit and
produce the record. Further, time was
again granted on 18.11.2013, inspite of
which no counter affidavit has been filed.

5. The learned standing counsel has,
however, produced the record today,
which the Court has perused.

6. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, the Court finds that the
Rules of 1997 have not been followed at
all. In the instant case, the order of the
District
Magistrate
dated
15.5.2013,
ceasing the financial and administrative
powers, is not only erroneous, but, is
perverse. It is not sufficient for the
District Magistrate to hold that the reply
of the petitioner was not satisfactory.
Something more was required to be
stated. The authority was required to give
reasons for rejecting the reply of the
petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid, the
authority had to come to some prima facie
conclusion
that
the
petitioner
was
involved in the defalcation of the Gaon
Sabha fund in order to pass an order
ceasing the financial and administrative
powers till conclusion of the final inquiry
contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules of
1996. In the instant case, the Court finds,
that the District Magistrate has not given
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any reason as to why the reply was not
satisfactory nor has given any reason as to
how the petitioner committed a financial
irregularity of the Gaon Sabha fund.
Consequently, the order dated 15.5.2013
ceasing the financial and administrative
powers cannot be sustained and is
quashed. The Writ Petition No.31474 of
2013 is allowed.

7. A final inquiry is required to be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
procedure contemplated under Rule 6 of
the Rules of 1997 and thereafter a report
is required to be submitted under Rule 7
of the Rules of 1997. The procedure
contemplated under Rule 6 is that the
inquiry officer shall draw the articles of
charges and the statements of imputation
and serve such articles of charges along
with
the
statements
and
relevant
documents in support of such statements
and the charges to the delinquent, who in
the instant case is the Pradhan. Specific
charges are required to be framed by the
inquiry officer, so that the Pradhan can
give a proper reply to each of the charges.
The procedure contemplated indicates,
that where the charge is denied by the
Pradhan, the inquiry officer is required to
conduct an inquiry by taking oral and
documentary evidence after giving an
opportunity to the Pradhan to crossexamine
such
witnesses
and
only
thereafter the inquiry officer is required to
submit an inquiry report, which would
contain the articles of charge and the
statement of the imputation, the defence
of the Pradhan and the assessment of the
evidence in respect of each articles of
charge and thereafter the findings on each
article of charge and the reasons thereof.

8. In the instant case, the inquiry
officer has done nothing as per the
procedure provided under Rule 6 of the
Rules of 1997. He has neither framed the
charge nor the statement of the imputation
nor the list of documents or the list of
witnesses that was to be relied upon by
the prosecution. All that the inquiry
officer has done is to hold an inquiry
which is nothing but a preliminary
enquiry
and
is
not
an
enquiry
contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules of
1997. The Court finds from a perusal of
the record that pursuant to the submission
of the report, a show cause notice dated
26.7.2013 was issued by the District
Magistrate, which contained the charges
and upon receipt of the reply a final order
has been passed. The Court finds that the
procedure adopted was patently illegal.
The charges so framed by the District
Magistrate were not proved nor was the
inquiry held in accordance with Rule 6 of
the Rules of 1976. The entire exercise was
wholly illegal and against the clear
provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997.
The inquiry report was in violation of the
provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997.

9. Since no charges were framed
against the petitioner nor any inquiry was
made in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules
of 1997, which is a mandatory requirement,
the
impugned
order
dated
8.10.2013
removing the petitioner under Section
95(1)(g) of the Act was wholly illegal and in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
The impugned order cannot be sustained and
is quashed. The writ petition No.60813 of
2013 is allowed.

10. Since the respondents have acted
illegally in violation of the mandatory
provision of the Rules of 1997 and Section
95(1)(g) of the Act and further have not
filed any counter affidavit inspite of
repeated time being granted, the Court
1 All] Jhandu Vs. The D.D.C Budaun & Ors.
115
imposes a cost of Rs.50,000/-. Rs.25,000/-
shall be paid to the petitioner within four
weeks from today and the remaining
Rs.25,000/- will be deposited by the District
Magistrate before the High Court Legal
Services Committee. It would be open to
the State Government to recover the amount
from the erring officials. If the amount is
not deposited, the Member Secretary will
approach the Registrar General, who in turn
will proceed to recover the amount as
arrears of land revenue.

11. The Registry is directed to supply a
copy of this order to the Member Secretary
within a week for necessary action.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64232 of 2013

Jhandu... Petitioner
Versus
The D.D.C Budaun & Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Tripathi, Sri A.P. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 1953Section-48(3)- Power of remand Deputy
director of consolidation-if not satisfied
with findings recorded by S.O.C.-argument
that ought to have remand for fresh
consideration-but can not disturb the
finding of facts recorded by S.O.C.-held-mis
conceived-in view of amended provision of
clause 3 of 48 of the Act-power to reappreciate oral or documentary evidence.

Held: Para-12
Settlement Officer Consolidation found
that marriage of Mohkam to Maya was
proved. But as Maya was not examined to
prove that Mithlesh Babu was her born due
to bedlock with Mohkam as such, the
matter was remanded for fresh trial.
Mithlesh Babu examined Satyapal and
Thakuri and filed his school record. On the
basis of these evidence, the Consolidation
Officer recorded findings that it was
proved that Mithlesh Babu was legitimate
son of Mohkam. In the circumstances, the
remand was wholly unnecessary and only
allowing the parties to fill up the lacuna in
their evidence. Respondent-1 has rightly
set aside the order of the appellate Court.
Finding of facts recorded by respondents-1
and 2 do not suffer from any illegality.

Case Law discussed:
2001(92) RD
79;
2003 (94) RD
614;
2003(106) RD 563; (2000) 3 SCC 103; (2009)
12 SCC 590; (2008) 8 SCC 485.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Surat
Ram(Maurya), J.)

1. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, for the
petitioner.

2. The writ petition has been filed
against the orders of Deputy Director of
Consolidation
dated
09.10.2013
and
Consolidation Officer dated 03.05.2010,
passed in proceedings under Section 12 of
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute relates to the land of
chaks 320, 748 and 1177 of village
Kurhashahpur, pargana
Ujhani, district
Budaun. Chaks 320 and 748 were recorded,
in the name of Mohkam son of Nekram and
Chak 1177 was recorded in the name of
Sipattar. The petitioner filed an objection
(registered as Case no. 5 of 2009-10) under
Section 12 of the Act, for recording his name
as an heir of Mohkam and Sipattar, the