Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43723 (ALL)

MOHAMMAD FAROOQUE v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/11629/2025 · 2025-05-26

Prakash Padia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90869 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11629 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohammad Farooque Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Shukla,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar by which the financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. It is argued by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner that complaint made by the complainant was not accompanied by the affidavit as per Rule 3 (2) of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997. It is further argued that the impugned order by which the financial and administrative power of the petitioner can be sustained the scrutiny of law regard being had to the fact that complaint made by the complainant must be accompanied with an affidavit in terms of Rule 3 (2) U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members ) Inquiry Rules, 1997, which admittedly was not accompanied by the said affidavit and therefore, the entire action which has been taken against the petitioner stands vitiated in law. It is also argued that in terms of Rule 2(2) which defines Enquiry Officer to mean District Panchayat Raj Officer or any other District Level Officer and in relation to same petitioner would submits that besides District Development Officer, the Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam and Junior Engineer, Jal Nigam were not the District Level Officer therefore, the inquiry report submitted on 24.07.2024 would not satisfy the requirement of preliminary inquiry report being strictly in consonance with Rule 4(2) read with Rule 2(2) of Rules, 1997 and therefore, the action taken on the basis of said inquiry report which culminated in passing of the order dated 04.04.2025 would be vitiated in law. 3. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 23.05.2025, instructions dated 24.05.2025 under the signature of District Magistrate, Siddharthnagar is placed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent before this Court, is taken on record. 4. It is stated in the aforesaid instructions that action was taken against the petitioner due to complaint made by the complainant on "Sampurn Samadhan Diwas", hence same is not required by the accompanied affidavit. It is further stated that out of three members inquiry committee, two members were district level officer and third one was appointed only in order to assist the other two inquiry officers. 5. In response to the aforesaid, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of law laid down in Full Bench decision in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Versus State of U.P., 2010(1) ADJ as well as the judgment rendered by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Misc. Single No. 984 of 2019 (Saleem Khan Versus State of U.P. and other), decided on 24.04.2019, wherein the Court held that a Junior Engineer was not a district level officer and the action of District Magistrate including him in the enquiry committee stood vitiated. 6. From the perusal of record, it is clear that inquiry committee, who submitted its report was consist of three members, out of which, one member was Junior Engineer, who is not district level officer, as such any order passed on the report of such committee consist of officers, who are not district level cannot be relied upon, hence the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 cannot be sustained in the eye of law on this ground alone. 7.Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 8. In this view of the fact, the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Siddharth nagar cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside. 9. The present writ petition is allowed. 10. Passing of this order will not restrain the respondent no.2- District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar to proceeding in accordance with law. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad