Smt Rajpata vs State of U.P.and Others

Sushil Harkauli, J.—According to Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UpPradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, every complaint has to be accompanied by the complainant''s own affidavit. The rule has been held to be mandatory by a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Sandhya Gupta v. District Magistrate, Auraiya and others, reported in 1999 (17) LCD 586.

In the present case the complaint was made by several persons, which includes one Ayodhya, whose thumb impression can be found on the complaint, copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure ''CA1'' to the counter affidavit. The affidavit in support of the complaint was filed by Ayodhya Prasad son of Raja Ram. If this Ayodhya Prasad is one of the complainant Ayodhya, the affidavit could be considered. But, the affidavit does not mention all the allegations made in the complaint. The affidavit is confined to three complaints. The third complaint relates to the alleged misconduct by the husband of the present Pradhan during his tenure, which is wholly irrelevant. The two remaining complaints, made in the affidavit, relate to unauthorized construction on the land of a graveyard and distribution of old age pension to unauthorized persons.

The enquiry conducted in accordance with the aforesaid Rule by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Faizabad, is enclosed as Annexure ''CA3'' to the counter affidavit. This report deals with several allegations but not the two allegations of the affidavit, referred to above. There is neither any investigation nor any finding in the report of the D.P.R.O. with regard to any of the two charges mentioned in the affidavit. Thus, for all practical purposes, the report of the enquiry, being in violation of the mandatory rule, cannot form the basis of the impugned order.

The counter affidavit, which has been filed, also does not advance the case of the respondent any further.

Having regard to the above facts, the enquiry conducted is not in accordance with the mandatory rules and consequently the enquiry report as well as the action taken on its basis by way of the impugned order dated 31.3.2008 under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act also cannot be sustained.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) is quashed.

(Petition allowed)