Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1969 (3) TMI SC This
Issues:
Scope of s. 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Rai Act, 1947 in suspending an elected Pradhan pending enquiry into charges against him. Analysis: The judgment delivered by Hedge J. of the Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the validity of an order suspending an elected Pradhan under the U.P. Panchayat Rai Act, 1947. The key question was whether the appellant had the authority to suspend the respondent pending an enquiry, as the suspension was not considered a punishment under s. 95 (1) (g) of the Act. The State Government's powers over Gaon Sabhas and their office-bearers were outlined in s. 95, with the power to suspend or remove office-bearers under specific conditions. However, the absence of a specific power to suspend a Pradhan pending enquiry raised doubts on the legality of the impugned order. The delegation of powers under s. 96A to Sub-Divisional Officers further complicated the issue, leading to a detailed analysis of the State Government's authority to issue such suspension orders. The contention that the State Government could treat Pradhans as its servants, invoking principles from previous court decisions, was rejected. A Pradhan, being an elected representative, did not have a master-servant relationship with the government, as their rights and duties were governed by the Act. The argument that the power to suspend a Pradhan was essential for a fair enquiry due to possible interference or misuse of powers was examined. The court emphasized that implied powers must be absolutely essential for executing conferred powers, not merely convenient. Without a clear provision in the Act allowing such suspensions, the court found the impugned order lacking legal authority, as highlighted in previous judgments by the Allahabad High Court. The judgment underscored the statutory framework governing Gaon Sabhas and their officers, precluding the need for inherent powers beyond those specified in the Act. The absence of a provision allowing the appellant to appoint an officiating Pradhan during suspension further reinforced the conclusion that the impugned order lacked legal backing. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concurred with the appellate bench's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the suspension order was made without legal authority, in line with the interpretation of the law by the Allahabad High Court in a previous case.
|