R.R.K. Trivedi, J.@mdashIn this petition on 16-2-1993 learned Standing Counsel was granted three weeks'' time to file counter affidavit and one week was granted to the Petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit. However, no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that petition may be heard without counter affidavit as on the legal question involved, Petitioner is entitled for the relief. Learned Standing Counsel also agreed that the petition may be disposed of at this stage. The writ petition is thus being disposed of finally at this stage.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that Petitioner was elected Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Bibiyapur Kayasthan, Pargana and Tahsil Bareilly. On certain complaints Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bareilly by his order dated 22-9-1992 suspended Petitioner from the office of Pradhan The aforesaid order of suspension was challenged in revision before Respondent No. 2. Revision has been dismissed on 24-11-1992. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the material on record.
4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner after referring to Section 95(1)(g) (iii) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has submitted that the alleged abuse of position should be as Pradhan only and the failure to perform the duties should also be with respect to the duties under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The allegations against Petitioner, however, are not connected with the abuse of position as Pradhan. hence the order of suspension could not be passed Learned Counsel has submitted that there are number of committees provided under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder for performing the duties and Petitioner acts as one of the members of the committees. In these circumstances he alone could not be blamed and penalised for any irregularity. In respect of Jawahar Rozgar Yojna it has been submitted that it is not covered by any duty created under the Act and the Rules hence it could not be made a ground for removal u/s 95(1)(g) of the Act and Petitioner could not be legally suspended. So far as the allegation against son of Petitioner is concerned, it has been submitted that money was given to the son by the Block Development Officer for constructing houses for economically weaker sections under a housing scheme and he could not be blamed in any manner. Lastly, learned Counsel for Petitioner has placed reliance on several orders of this Court through different benches in writ petitions pertaining to suspension of Pradhan.
5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the order of suspension is fully Justified on the allegations found prima facie correct against Petitioner and no interference is called for by this Court, it has further been submitted that before revisional authority learned Counsel for Petitioner prayed that enquiry u/s 95(1)(g) itself may be directed to be concluded within a specified time against which he has no objection. The revisional authority has given direction and as such no Interference is necessary now by this Court.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. Main stress of learned Counsel for Petitioner was on Clause (iii) of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act. It would be appropriate to reproduce the aforesaid provision at this place:
95. Inspection-(1) The State Government may-
(g) remove a member of Nyaya Panchayat or a joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, an officer-bearer of a Gaon Sabha or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if be-
(i)....
(ii)....
(iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or Rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or
(iv)....
(v)....
7. Shri G.C. Bhattacharya has submitted that abuse of the position should be as such. It is true that the words ''as such'' Indicate that the action of Petitioner which is alleged to be a misuse or abuse of the position should be connected with his position as Pradhan. However, in the present case the allegations against Petitioner are of various nature which are as under:
(1) misuse of the funds of Jawahar Rozgar Yojna;
(2) Illegal realisation of money for allotment of land for purpose of residence and for planting trees;
(3) realisation of money from widows, handicapped and old persons for providing them pension from the Government; and
(4) to obtain contract in the name of his son for construction of houses for weaker sections.
8. Before passing an order, enquiry was got done through Naib Tahsildar and after perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Sub-Divisional Officer recorded his satisfaction that the allegations appeared to be prima facie correct. The finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer may be reproduced below:
Mere dwara patrawali ka adhyan kiya gaya. Pradhan ke virudh lagaye gaye upoyukt varnit arop pratham dristaya sidha hota hain. Pradhan gram sabha Bibiyapur Kayasthan me aniymait karya karne gram sabha samptti ko kshati panhuchane tatha vaktigata swarth purti karne ka doshi paya gaya. Atha pradhan gaon sabha Bibiyapur Kayasthan ko U.P. Pan. Ra. Adhi. ke dhara 95 (1) (g) ke antargat pradhan pad se tatkal pravab se nilambit kiya Jata hai.
9. Thus the submission of the learned Counsel for Petitioner that there was no allegation on which basis Petitioner could be suspended is not acceptable. Gaon Sabha is the smallest unit for running the administration of the country in democratic manner and Pradhan of Gaon Sabha heads many committees for discharging various functions under the Act and the Rules and and the various other schemes sponsored from time to time by the State Government and the Central Government. The Pradhan being the main figure in the village, the schemes are sought to be implemented through him as clear from the Rules relating to Jawahar Rozgar Yojna. Chapter I of the aforesaid Rules with reference to the implementation of the Scheme, the role of Gaon Sabha has been contemplated in the following manner:
Yojana me gram panohayato ke paribhasha-5. Gram panchayat ka arth hai sabse nichle star par chuni hui sanstha. Isme gram panchayaten, mandal nagar panchayaten athaba paramparagat gram sansthayen aati hain, jaise gram parishaden aur gram vikash board, jinko kanuni darja mila hai.
6-Gahan gram panchyaten nahi hai, wahan unki dhanrashi wanha ke block/block samiti ko de dee jane chahiye aur we un panchayaton me Jawahar Rojgar Yojana ko lagu karne ke liye jimmedar hogee. Aise mamlo me hath me lee jane wali karyon ke maden gaon star par swayam sambandhit panchayat, panchayato ke gram sabha dwara tay ke jayegee.
From a perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it is clear that the implementation of the entire scheme at the village level was the responsibility of the Gram Panchayat or Gaon Sabha which is headed by the Pradhan. It cannot be accepted that any misuse of office in connection with the implementation of Jawahar Rozgar Yojna, the abuse of position is not as Pradhan. A Division Bench of this Court in case Ram Patat Saroj v. S.D.O. Lalganj, district Azamgarh 1992 AWC 1038, considered the position of Pradhan in respect of Jawahar Rozgar Yojna at length and then answered that misuse of the funds of Jawahar Rozgar Yojna amounts to abuse of the position quo Pradhan. It would be appropriate to extract para 5 of the aforesaid judgment:
5. Plain reading of Clause (g) (iii) shows that in any of the fact situations envisaged therein, namely, (1) abusing the position as Pradhan, (ii) persistent failure to perform the duties imposed by the Act or the rules made thereunder and (iii) his continuance as Pradhan being undesirable in public interest, proceeding for removal can be initiated. As the allegation shows, the Appellant as the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha was entrusted with the money of the Yojna, and if the allegation is true, he has, by misappropriating the money, abused his position qua Pradhan. The case, therefore, squarely falls under the first part of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (g) of Section 95(1) of the Act.
10. In the present case, the allegations against the Petitioner are such that if they are prima facie correct, it cannot be said that his continuance in the office is desirable in the public interest. Both the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have considered the allegations in detail and then order of suspension has been found justified. Respondent No. 1 has already directed to conclude enquiry within a month.
11. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the reasons stated above, this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
