HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1792 of 2006 (M/S) Dharam Pal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Village Development Uttaranchal Govt. Dehradun & Ors … Respondents Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 29th April, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner is a Pradhan of Village Panchayat Mukhiyali Kalan, Block Laksar, district Haridwar and immediately thereafter a complaint was made against the petitioner regarding financial and administrative irregularity. On the basis of such complaint a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer in which prima facie the petitioner was found guilty in financial and administrative irregularity and the function of the petitioner was ceased. According to Section 95 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act reads as follows:- Section 95. Inspection.-(1) The State Government may- (a) cause to be inspected an immovable property owned used or occupied by a Gram Panchayat, or a joint committee or a (Nyaya Panchayat) or any work in progress under the direction of such (Gram Panchayat) (b) by an order in writing call for and inspect a book or document in the possession or under the control of a Gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or a Nyaya Panchayat. (C) by an order in writing require a Gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or a Nyaya Panchayat to furnish such statements, reports or copies of documents relating to the proceedings or duties of the Gram Panchayat or such committee or a Nyaya Panchayat as it things fit; (d) record in writing for the consideration of a Gram Panchayat or Joint Committee any observation which it thinks proper in regard to the proceedings or duties of such Gram Panchayat or Joint Committee; (e) institute any enquiry in respect of any matter relating to a Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat; and (f) dissolve any Gram Panchayat, Joint Committee, (Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti) or Nyaya Panchayat if in the opinion of the Statement Government such Gram Panchayat, Joint Committee (Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti) or Nyaya Panchayat has abused its position or has continuously failed to perform the duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or if its continuance is not considered desirable in public interest; (g) “remove a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or member of a Gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if he- (i) absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings. (ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude, (iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by this act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or (iii-a) has taken the benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section 11-A or sub-section (5) of Section 12, as the case may be, on the basis of a false declaration subscribed by him stating that he is a member of Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the backward classes, as the case may be. (iv) being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in politics, or (v) suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5- A: (Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a Committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government.) As per the proviso to the aforesaid provision in case a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and others irregularities such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government. In the present case a preliminary inquiry, which was conducted under the rules, was conducted by the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer and in the preliminary inquiry financial and administrative irregularities have been found against the Pradhan and therefore the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan i.e. the petitioner was ceased and the final inquiry is pending. However, the requirement of law is that such inquiry must be conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The allegation of the petitioner is that the preliminary inquiry has not been conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, but it was conducted by the Assistant District Panchayat Raj Officer and this fact has been admitted by the State. In view thereof when the inquiry was itself conducted by the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer and not by the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, which is the requirement of law. The inquiry is no inquiry in the eye of law as Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer has no jurisdiction to do so such inquiry. This Court is of the view that the findings given by the Assistant Panchayat Raj Adhikari cannot be put into effect as the appointment of the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer for conducting the inquiry is bad in law and the consequential decision taken by him is also in violation of law being without jurisdiction. As a consequence, the writ petition succeeds and the order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar and District Panchayat Raj Adhikari is quashed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 29.04.2009 Virendra