9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Appellant was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed as required by the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 2. Whether the concept of reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed requires two opportunities for a Pradhan. 3. Whether the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act mandates giving two opportunities to a Pradhan before removal. Analysis: 1. The Appellant, a Pradhan, was removed from office by the Sub-Divisional Officer based on charges of misuse of office. The Appellant challenged this order through a writ petition, which was initially dismissed by a single Judge. The main contention raised was regarding the reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed, as required by the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The Appellant argued that he was not given a second opportunity to show cause after the charges were proved. The Single Judge rejected this argument, stating that a second opportunity was not necessary once charges were proven. 2. The interpretation of the expression "reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed" was crucial in this case. Referring to Section 95 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, it was highlighted that the proviso to Clause (g) mandates giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed. This opportunity includes the chance to deny charges, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. The judgment emphasized that the concept of reasonable opportunity requires two stages: one during the enquiry and another after findings are recorded and action is proposed. 3. Legal precedents were cited to support the requirement of two opportunities for showing cause against the action proposed. The judgments in cases such as High Commissioner for India v. I.M. Lall and Khem Chand v. Union of India established that a civil servant or government servant must be given two opportunities - during the enquiry and after findings are recorded - to fulfill the criteria of reasonable opportunity. The court concluded that the legislature, by enacting the proviso to Section 95(1)(g), intended to provide two opportunities before the removal of a Pradhan. 4. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, dismissed the writ petition, and set aside the order of the Single Judge and the Sub-Divisional Officer. It was held that the Appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed, as required by the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, thus leading to the quashing of the removal order. The judgment reaffirmed the necessity of providing two opportunities to a Pradhan before taking any action against them, in line with established legal principles and statutory requirements.
|
