High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69268 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5790 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K. Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Supplementary afÏdavit filed today is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
A) Relating to the serious irregularities being detected in certain development actitivities being carried out within the territory of the Gram Panchayat concerned which resulted in the huge financial loss to the State and upon an enquiry initially conducted in the matter, the respondent no.5 was held prima facie guilty of the charges and hence was transferred to cluster Kundaura, so unless and until the action could be taken in the matter finally, the said Gram Panchayat Adhikari should not have been repatriated to the cluster Badagaon. B) Merely on a request made by the Pradhan to repatriate the Gram Panchayat Adhikari, the District Magistrate was not justified in repatriating the concerned Gram Panchayat Adhikari in the face of the fact that three enquiries had been conducted previously and a Public Interest Litigation No.186 of 2025 was pending before the High Court in which direction was sought to take final action in the matter of charges being proved in the enquiries held against the said Gram Panchayat Adhikari as well as Pradhan. 5. Meeting the above arguments, learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this petition at the instance of the member of Gram Pradhan concernced as according to him either the Pradhan can come directly to the Court or Gram Panchayat being a body through its Pradhan but no other member has a right to maintain a petition and that too in the matter where Gram Pradhan had himself requested for repatriation of the Gram Panchayat Adhikari. 6. On the point of relevant pending enquiries, learned Standing Counsel has argued that since now matter is sub judice before the Court in the pending PIL, the fate of enquiry reports will automatically stand bound by the final outcome of the said Public Interest Litigation petition. 7. Meeting the above arguments, Sri Ojha in rejoinder afÏdavit tried to address the Court on the point of locus by submitting that every member of the Village Panchayat has a stake in so far as the development activities and the financial aspects involved are concerned and if the Gram Panchayat acts arbitrarily in a matter and the authorities are also acting in conivance with the Pradhan then members cannot be rendered remedyless. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, particularly the three enquiry reports conducted in the matter, I find that in all the three enquiries the Gram Panchayat Adhikari has been held to be guilty of the charges. It is on account of two previous enquiries only that Gram Panchayat Adhikari was shifted to another cluster and it is but for the request made by the Pradhan that the said Gram Panchayat Adhikari could not have been repatriated in the interest of better administration. It surprises the Court that while the Pradhan took a stand that he was not aware about the documents and their details and the concerned person dealing with the finances might have cleared the bills and yet he wanted repatriation of such ofÏcer. This speaks in volume about the questionable conduct of the Pradhan himself. 9. Since the matter of Public Interest Litigation is pending before the court, such a relief could have been obtained in the pending Public Interest Litigation itself as is sought to be obtained in service jurisdiction. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as Supreme Court that in matters relating to the employment the service jurisprudence does not permit the third party complaint to approach the Court for appropriate relief against the employee, nor even a public interest litigation is maintainable otherwise in service matters. 10. However, the Court cannot remain oblivious of the various enquiry reports that have been brought on record while dealing with the matter in its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and I appreciate and find substance in the argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate that a member of Gram Panchayat may have stakes in welfare of the people connected with the Gram Panchayat as well as the development activities in the village within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat concerned. 11. In the circumstances, therefore, since the order has been passed by the District Magistrate on the request of Gram Pradhan, it would serve the interest of justice better if the petitioner as a member of the Gram Panchayat concerned is directed to approach the District Magistrate by making a detailed representation may be with signatures of other members of the Gram Panchayat against the order of transfer of Gram Panchayat Adhikari to the cluster of Bade Gaon and in the event such a representation is made, the District Magistrate this time will look into the entire previous enquiries held and will proceed to examine every aspect of the matter meticulously before arriving at a final conclusion upon such representation being made. The Court expects the District Magistrate to put in abeyance his own order atleast till he takes final decision in the matter.
Arguments
2. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri B.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner who is only a member of Gram Panchayat, Block Sumerpur, District Hamirpur has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by respondent no.3 transferring the Gram Panchayat Adhikari to the Cluster Devagaon in Village Badagaon where the Gram Panchayat concerned situates. 4. Two fold arguments have been advanced by learned Senior Advocate:
Decision
10. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the District Magistrate concerned within a period of four weeks from today and in the event any such representation is made, appropriate decision shall be taken by the District Magistrate concerned after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and such other members of the Panchayat/signatories to the representation and also the Gram Pradhan concerned, within a further period of six weeks. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad