2020 (5) TMI 721 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking a writ of mandamus to appoint an SIT, or any other investigating agency, to inquire into the matter regarding mis-utilization and misappropriation of public money, and to take action against the culprits - Seeking declaration directing the State authorities to take appropriate action against the private respondent, to seize his financial powers thereby preventing him from misappropriating public money, and to declare his continuance in office as illegal - petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard before placing them under suspension. Whether the first proviso to Section 138(4) of the Act, whereby an opportunity of hearing is required to be given, would apply even in the case of suspension, or whether it would apply only where the services of the Village Pradhan are sought to be terminated? Whether the power, to place a Village Pradhan under suspension, is a quasi-judicial power? Whether such a power, conferred on the State Government under Section 138(4) of the Act, can be delegated by them to the District Magistrate under Section 146 of the Act? Whether the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act can be applied for taking action against a Village Pradhan for alleged irregularities on his part in the execution of MGNREGA works? HELD THAT - The validity of the notification dated 09.06.2017, delegating powers under Section 138 of the Act to the District Magistrate, is upheld. Since the requirement of the first proviso to Section 138(4) would apply in the case of suspension also, the Village Pradhans, whom the District Magistrates seek to place under suspension, must be given a show cause notice furnishing details as to why such action is proposed to be taken. The Village Pradhan should also be given a reasonable opportunity of submitting a representation thereto, a reasoned order should be passed by the District Magistrate thereafter, and only then may action, if need be, be taken by the District Magistrate to place the concerned Gram Pradhan under suspension. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the first proviso to Section 138(4) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 applies to suspension or only to termination.
2. Whether the power to suspend a Village Pradhan is a quasi-judicial power.
3. Whether the quasi-judicial power under Section 138(4) can be delegated to the District Magistrate.
4. Whether the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act can be applied for taking action against a Village Pradhan for irregularities in MGNREGA works.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Applicability of the First Proviso to Section 138(4):
The court examined whether the first proviso to Section 138(4), which requires an opportunity of hearing, applies to suspension. It was determined that Section 138(4) relates to suspension and mandates an enquiry before suspension. The first proviso, which mandates an opportunity for representation, applies to suspension and not just termination.

II. Nature of the Power to Suspend a Village Pradhan:
The court analyzed whether the power to suspend under Section 138(4) is quasi-judicial. It was concluded that the power involves adjudication of facts and requires consideration of representations, making it quasi-judicial. The authority exercising this power acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal.

III. Delegation of Quasi-Judicial Power:
The court examined if the quasi-judicial power under Section 138(4) could be delegated to the District Magistrate. It was noted that judicial power cannot ordinarily be delegated unless expressly permitted by statute. Section 146 of the Act allows the State Government to delegate its powers, including quasi-judicial powers, to subordinate officers. The court upheld the validity of the notification dated 09.06.2017, which delegated the power to suspend to the District Magistrate, as it was within the legislative framework.

IV. Application of Panchayati Raj Act for MGNREGA Irregularities:
The court addressed whether action against a Village Pradhan for MGNREGA irregularities could be taken under the Panchayati Raj Act. It was concluded that the instructions from the Central Government allow for action under the State Panchayati Raj Act. Thus, the District Magistrate has jurisdiction to proceed against the Village Pradhan under the Panchayati Raj Act for MGNREGA irregularities.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the validity of the notification delegating powers to the District Magistrate. It emphasized that Village Pradhans must be given a show cause notice and an opportunity to represent themselves before suspension. The court directed that all writ petitions be disposed of accordingly, with no costs.