AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Singh, J.—Heard Sri Virendra Kumar appearing for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, appearing for the respondents.
By means of the impugned order, the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry in relation to the charges referred to herein. Sri Virendra Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Impugned order of suspension is impaired on reasons, inter alia, that the charges referred to therein are vague and indefinite : and that the District Magistrate/District Election Officer (Panchayat), Jaunpur, had no disciplinary control over the Class 3 and Class 4 employees appointed on posts created by G.O, dated 27.8.1999 (Annexure-II) and assigned to election duty during Panchayat Election. The learned counsel placed credence on the Government order dated August 17. 1999, the text of which is that it is the Chief State Election Commission who will have the administrative control over 65 clerks and 65 peons which posts were created for the purpose of Panchayat Election. Sri B. D. Mandhyan took aid of Section 12BB of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which embodies the provision that the superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of the election to the office of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a member of a Gram Panchayat shall be vested in the State Election Commission ; and subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission, the Mukhya Nirvachan Adhikari (Panchayat) shall supervise and perform all functions relating to the conduct of the election to the office of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a member of a Gram Panchayat in the State.
I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar. The Government order dated 17.8.1999 reliance on which has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is abstracted below being germane to the adjudication of the controversy :
^^mi;ZqDr fo"k;d dk;kZy; Kki la[;k 230 ,e-,l-@33-3-1995] fnuk�d 14 Qjojh] 1995 dh vksj vkidk /;ku vkdf"kZr djrs gq, eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ''k gqvk gS fd mijksDr dk;kZy; Kki }kjk izns''k ds 65 tiunksa gsrq jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx ds dk;Z ds fy, l`ftr 65 dfu"B fyfid rFkk 65 pijklh@pkSdhnkj ds inksa ij iz''kklfud fu;a=.k jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx dk jgsxk rFkk bu inksa ij funs''kd] iapk;rh jkt m-iz-] dk dksbZ fu;U=.k ughsa jgsxkA
2- bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g Hkh dgus dk funZs''k gqvk gS fd d`i;k mDr dk;kZy; Kki fnuk�sd 14 Qjojh] 1995 esa mfYyf[kr izLrj 3 esa nh xbZ O;oLFkk dks ,rn~}kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA mDr vkns''k rRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw le>s tk;saxsaA**
It is not repudiated by Sri Mandhyan that the petitioners are the retrenched employees of Sharda Sahayak Command Pariyojna and they were appointed and assigned duties against the posts created by the Government vide order dated 14.2.1995 (Annexure-1 to the petition) for the purposes of Panchayat Election. On 6.7.2000, the learned counsel appearing for the Commission was given time to obtain instructions as to whether the power vested in the Commission vide G.O. dated 17.8.1999 was ever delegated to the District Magistrate/District Election Officer (Panchayat) and instead, tried to counteract the submission by placing reliance on Section 12BB of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, which in my firm opinion is not attracted for application inasmuch as Section 12BB (1) bespeaks of the superintendence, direction and control of the election to the office of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a member of Gram Panchayat and sub-section (2J of Section 12BB vests power in the Chief State Election Officer (Panchayat) to supervise and perform all functions relating to the conduct of the election to the office of Pradhan. Up-Pradhan and a member of a Gram Panchayat subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission and it would crystallize that it does not vest power in the District Magistrate or the District Election Officer to place the petitioner under suspension who is to be reckoned in the administrative control of the State Election Commission. The order impugned herein, therefore, suffers from the lack of Jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot be sustained.
As a result of foregoing discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The Impugned order dated 16.5.200.0 is quashed. It would, however, be open to the Election Commission, U. P. to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.