Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajendra Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 774 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10424 (5 June 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 42

Special Appeal No. 774 of 2007

Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others

&

Special Appeal No. 775 of 2007

Mohd. Nayeem Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Both these appeals arise out of judgment dated 8.5.2007 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21386 of 2007 (Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) and therefore as requested by learned counsel for the parties have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

The Special Appeal No. 775 of 2007 has been preferred by the complainant, who was impleaded as respondent no. 5 in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant") against order of the Hon'ble Single Judge whereby the writ petition was allowed.

The Special Appeal No. 774 of 2007 has been preferred by the elected Village Pradhan, Rajendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner") who was the petitioner and had preferred the aforesaid writ petition challenging the orders dated 15.3.2007 and 20.4.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar. Though the writ petition of the petitioner has been allowed but the Hon'ble Single Judge has permitted the authorities to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioner and against this part of the order the petitioner has preferred this appeal.  

Sri Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the Hon'ble Single Judge has found that there is no charge of embezzlement or misappropriation there is no occasion to permit continuance of inquiry against the petitioner and therefore the entire inquiry proceedings are liable to be set aside.

On behalf of the complainant Sri Gyanendra Srivastava, learned counsel however contended that serious charges of embezzlement and misappropriation were leveled against the petitioner and the Hon'ble Single Judge has erred in law by setting aside the order dated 15.3.2007 whereby the financial and administrative power of the petitioner was withdrawn in exercise of power under Section 95 (1)(g)(3) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In our view the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge does not warrant any interference at this stage. While setting aside the order dated 15.3.2007 the Hon'ble Single Judge has observed that prima facie there is no charge of embezzlement or misappropriation but it does not mean that any finding of fact has been recorded by His Lordship. In any case since the inquiry is already pending and has been allowed to proceed, it is open to the competent authority to conduct the inquiry in respect to all such allegations as are found prima facie against the petitioner. However, we find it appropriate to observe that the petitioner, Rajendra Singh shall cooperate with the inquiry and will not seek unnecessary adjournment with the intention to delay the inquiry proceedings. In case the authorities found that the petitioner is trying to delay the inquiry proceeding, it shall be open to competent authority to consider the matter afresh for exercising its power under Section 95(1)(g)(3) of the Act. We also provide that while conducting inquiry against the petitioner the authorities shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by Hon'ble Single Judge in the judgment dated 8.5.2007 or by this Court in this judgment, and they shall proceed with the matter by independent application of mind on the basis of material available with them.

With the aforesaid observations both these appeals are dismissed.

Dt/-05.06.2007  

Avy


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.