Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17922 of 2010 Petitioner :- Tejwa Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. Local Self Govt. & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Yogesh Kumar,A.C. Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
In the present petitioner had made complaint on 12.10.2009 and
28.01.2010 and along with the same had appended copy of order
passed in writ petition No.50805 of 2009. Pursuant thereto before any
action could be taken again an order dated 30.07.2009 was passed by
this Court in writ petition No.41361 of 2009, Smt. Neelam Tripathi vs.
State of U.P. to the effect that the report of the Chief Development
Officer dated 30.07.2009 be treated as complaint against the petitioner
and on the same District Magistrate may initiate proceedings in
accordance with law after complying with the provisions of the Act and
Rules. Thereafter, treating the order dated 30.07.2009 of the Chief
Development Officer as complaint in terms of Rule 4 of the Enquiry
Rules, 1997, District Panchayat Raj Officer has been appointed as
Enquiry Officer. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.C. Tiwari, Advocate,
contended with vehemence that in the present case preliminary
enquiry had already been conducted by the Chief Development
Officer, as such there was no occasion for passing order for
conducting another enquiry, as such order passed by the District
Magistrate is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that
pursuant to order dated 13.08.2009 passed by this Court, the order
passed by the Chief Development Officer has been treated as
complaint, and on the same orders have been passed for conducting
preliminary enquiry, as such no inteference be made.
After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position,
which emerges in the present case is that complaint had been made
by the petitioner and after the said complaint had been made,
petitioner preferred writ petition No.50805 of 2009, wherein this Court
had disposed of the writ petition with direction to pass appropriate
order under Rule 5 of Enquiry Rules, 1997. Pursuant thereto before
any action could be taken again an order dated 30.07.2009 was
passed by this Court in writ petition No.41361 of 2009, Smt. Neelam
Tripathi vs. State of U.P. directing that report of the Chief Development
Officer dated 30.07.2009 be treated as complaint against the petitioner
and on the same District Magistrate may initiate proceedings in
accordance with law after complying with the provisions of the Act and
Rules. Thereafter, treating the dated 30.07.2009 of the Chief
Development Officer as complaint in terms of Rule 4 of the Enquiry
Rules, 1997, District Panchayat Raj Officer has been appointed as
-2-
Enquiry Officer. Once this is the factual scenario that in the present
case, as far as Chief Development Officer is concerned, at no point of
time he had ever been appointed as Enquiry Officer and report
submitted by him has been directed to be treated as complaint made
by public officer, and in such a situation once order has been passed
to hold preliminary enquiry, then to say that in the past preliminary
enquiry had been conducted and report had been submitted cannot be
accepted by any means, as the District Magistrate had never passed
any order appointing the Chief Development Officer as Enquiry Officer
to conduct preliminary enquiry and submit report.
Consequently, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010
SRY