STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus SMT. JANKI DEVI PAL

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 1075 · Decided: 13-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

) 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
V. 
SMT. JANK! DEVI PAL 
FEBRUARY 13, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayats (Removal of 
Pramukhs, UP Pramukhs. Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 
1977: 
A 
B 
c 
r.4-Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha-Complaint against-Preliminary 
inquiry--Conducted by Additional District Magistrate-State Government 
instituting a formal inquiry and divesting the Adhyaksha of her financial and 
administrative powers-Writ petition before High Court allowed on the ground 
that inquiry 111as a nullity as it n1as conducted by Additional District Magistrate D 
and not by District Magistrate-The contention of State that in view of 
provisions of sub-sec.( I) ofs.23,Cr.P.C., Additional District Magistrate is not 
subordinate to District Magistrate and is, therefore, co1npetent to conduct an 
inquiry against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, reject by High Court-Pending 
appeal before Supreme Court term of Adhyaksha came to an end and State 
contended that though its appeal has become infructuous, the interpretation E 
placed by High Court on r.4 1vas causing serious inconvenience to 
ad1ninistration-Held, the decision in the appeal has been rendered merely 
acadenzic as in spite of the Court entering into interpretation of relevant 
provisions 111ou/d not pass any consequential order as the tern2 of respondent 
as Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha is already over- It is careless and clumsy drafting F 
of r.4 which is responsible for the situation-The draftsman has clearly ·used 
the term 'District Magistrate' as distinct from the term 'Additional District 
Magistrate'. -The definition of District Magistrale in clause( 14) of s.2 .of the 
Act is not applicable if there be something repugnant in the subject or context-
The very use of 'Additional District Magistrate' and 'District Magistrate' in 
the same rule, consisting of one sentence, clearly suggests that the two terms G 
are used in t1110 different 111canings-Contention raised by Stqte runs counter 
to the language of the rule-Once the flaw was pointed out by the High Court, 
State' sho11ld have promptly removed it by amending the rule instead of filing 
special leave petition and keeping the certainty of law in suspension-State is 
·one of the largest litigant and s11ch tendency on its par/ of adding to the bulk H 
1075 
1076 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] I S.C.R. 
A of pending cases when it can be avoided by taking a quick and conveniem step 
of amending its own rule has to be deprecated 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal NQ. 2065 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I J.9:1998 of the Allahabad High 
B Court in W.P. No. 1896of1998. 
Dinesh Dwivedi and Shail Kumar Dwivedi for the Appellants. 
Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Ravi P. Mehrotra and P.K. 
c 
Chakravarty for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
In the year 1995 the respondent was elected as Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha 
,. 
in District Sultanpur, State of U.P. Certain complaints were received against 
+ 
her where in the State Government directed an inquiry to be made by the 
D District Magistrate who in his turn got the preliminary inquiry conducted 
through Additional District Magistrate (Establishment), Sultanpur. Acting on 
the preliminary inquiry report and a supplementary report prepared by the 
Additiorfal District Magistrate, the State Government instituted a formal inquiry 
and at the same time directed the respondent to· be divested of financial and ·-
E administrative powers exercised by her in the capacity of Zila Panchayat 
)( 
Adhyaksh. 
Section 29 of Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat 
Adhiniyam 1961 (U.P. Act No. 32of1961), (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) 
and Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Pachayats (Removal 
F 
of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules. 
1977 (hereinafter 'Enquiry Rules', for short) framed in exercise of the powers 
conferred by Section 23 7 read with Sections 16 and 29 of the Act provide as 
u_nder 
G 
Act 
Section 29. "Removal of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha-(1) If in 
the opinion of the State Government the Adhyaksha or the 
Upadhyaksha while acting in place of Adhyaksha; willfully omits or 
refuses to perform his duties or functions under this Act or abuses the 
_, 
H 
powers vested in him or is found to be guilty of misconduct in the 
.. / 
STATE 1· . .IANKt.DEVI PAL 
1077 
' 
discharge of his duties or becomes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.