High Court

this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2010(111) R.D.699. It is further argued that the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate only on the basis of inspection report, which is not permissible as per provisions of Section 95(1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rules 2 and 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up- Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. It is further argued that financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan can be ceased only after appointing Enquiry Officer as per Rules and after submission of enquiry report. This fact has been stated in paragraph-12 of the writ petition. It is further argued that a bare perusal of the impugned order reflects that no such Inquiry Officer, as contemplated under the Rules 3 & 4 of the Rules of 1997 and Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947 has ever been appointed.

4.Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon Full Bench judgement of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36881 of 2008 (Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 26.10.2010 in which provisions of Section 95(1) (g) of the Act of 1947 and the provisions of the Rule 3 & 4 of the Rules of 1997 has been considered in detail and has recorded conclusions in paragraph 107 of the judgment, which is delineate as under:- "107. Our conclusions are as follows: (a) The DM may ask the preliminary enquiry to be conducted by any officer defined under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules on a complaint or a report under rule 3 or any other material or information. He has suo motu powers as well to order a preliminary enquiry; (b) A pradhan has no right to object that complaint or report is not in accordance with rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules; (c) A pradhan is neither entitled to be associated in the preliminary enquiry nor is entitled to the copy of the preliminary report. However, before an order ceasing the financial and administrative power is passed, his explanation or point of view or the version to the charges should be obtained and considered; (d) In the first and the third WPs, the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of preliminary report after obtaining and considering the explanation of the pradhan. The impugned orders in these WPs cannot be faulted on this ground; (e) In our opinion the word 'otherwise' in rule 5 includes and the DM can rely upon the following reports only to cease financial and administrative power and direct the final enquiry: A report of a person who is also defined as an enquiry officer under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules--irrespective of whether he was directed by the DM to conduct the preliminary inquiry or not; A preliminary enquiry report conducted by the DM himself. (f) In the third writ petition, the report was submitted by the DPRO, who is defined as an enquiry officer under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules. The impugned order cannot be faulted on the ground that the DPRO was not asked by the DM to conduct the preliminary enquiry."

5. The aforesaid conclusions drawn by the Full Bench of this Court categorically demonstrate that for invoking the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947 for ceasing administrative and financial powers of an elected Gram Pradhan, the District Magistrate is required to institute a preliminary inquiry as per Rule 3 & 4 of the Rules of 1997 and only thereafter he can pass order for ceasing financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan.

6. Prima facie, I find that the provisions of the Act of 1947 and the Rules of 1997 have not been followed as no inquiry as contemplated under the Rule 3 & 4 of the Rules of 1997 has been instituted.

7. Large number of cases are coming before this Court every day where the orders were passed by the District Magistrates ceasing the administrative and financial powers of the Gram Pradhan without following the provisions contained under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act, 1947. The aforesaid provisions has been dealt with and interpreted in great detail by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav(supra) in the year 2010. The aforesaid judgement is valid even today. For the reasons best known to the District Magistrate, concerned in the entire State of U.P. they are not following provisions contained under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act, 1947 nor Rules 3 & 4 of the Rules, 1997. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon a circular issued by the State Government in this regard dated

18.04.2019, which was passed relying upon various judgements delivered by this Court from time to time. Apart from the same in the case of counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument, placed reliance upon paragraph 5 of the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Pushpa Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2014(1) ADJ 205. The paragraph 5 of the aforesaid order reads as follows:- "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the Rules of 1997 have not been followed at all. In the instant case, the order of the District Magistrate dated 15.5.2013, ceasing the financial and administrative powers, is not only erroneous, but, is perverse. It is not sufficient for the District Magistrate to hold that the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Something more was required to be stated. The authority was required to give reasons for rejecting the reply of the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid, the authority had to come to some prima facie conclusion that the petitioner was involved in the defalcation of the Gaon Sabha fund in order to pass an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers till conclusion of the final inquiry contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1996. In the instant case, the Court finds, that the District Magistrate has not given any reason as to why the reply was not satisfactory nor has given any reason as to how the petitioner committed a financial irregularity of the Gaon Sabha fund. Consequently, the order dated 15.5.2013 ceasing the financial and administrative powers cannot be sustained and is quashed. The Writ Petition No.31474 of 2013 is allowed"

8. It appears from perusal of the record that the respondent no.2-District Magistrate is not complying with the provisions contained under the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act, 1947 and Rules 3 & 4 of the Rules, 1947 as well as the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav (supra)and the circular issued by the State Government dated 18.04.2019.

9. The matter requires consideration.

10.The respondent no.1-Additional Chief Secretary (Panchayatraj), Govt. of U.P. at Lucknow is directed to take appropriate steps in the matter and submit action taken report before this Court within two weeks from today. The respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Sambhal is also directed to file his personal affidavit that under what circumstances such kind of order has been passed by him, which is complete violation of law.

11. List this matter on 28.05.2025. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as consequential order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Pramod Tripathi

this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2010(111) R.D.699. It is further argued that the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate only on the basis of inspection report, which is not permissible as per provisions of Section 95(1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rules 2 and 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up- Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. It is further argued that financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan can be ceased only after appointing Enquiry Officer as per Rules and after submission of enquiry report. This fact has been stated in paragraph-12 of the writ petition. It is further argued that a bare perusal of the impugned order reflects that no such Inquiry Officer, as contemplated under the Rules 3 & 4 of the Rules of 1997 and Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947 has ever been appointed.

4.Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon Full Bench judgement of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36881 of 2008 (Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 26.10.2010 in which provisions of Section 95(1) (g) of the Act of 1947 and the provisions of the Rule 3 & 4 of the Rules of 1997 has been considered in detail and has recorded conclusions in paragraph 107 of the judgment, which is delineate as under:- "107. Our conclusions are as follows: (a) The DM may ask the preliminary enquiry to be conducted by any officer defined under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules on a complaint or a report under rule 3 or any other material or information. He has suo motu powers as well to order a preliminary enquiry; (b) A pradhan has no right to object that complaint or report is not in accordance with rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules; (c) A pradhan is neither entitled to be associated in the preliminary enquiry nor is entitled to the copy of the preliminary report. However, before an order ceasing the financial and administrative power is passed, his explanation or point of view or the version to the charges should be obtained and considered; (d) In the first and the third WPs, the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of preliminary report after obtaining and considering the explanation of the pradhan. The impugned orders in these WPs cannot be faulted on this ground; (e) In our opinion the word 'otherwise' in rule 5 includes and the DM can rely upon the following reports only to cease financial and administrative power and direct the final enquiry: A report of a person who is also defined as an enquiry officer under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules--irrespective of whether he was directed by the DM to conduct the preliminary inquiry or not; A preliminary enquiry report conducted by the DM himself. (f) In the third writ petition, the report was submitted by the DPRO, who is defined as an enquiry officer under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules. The impugned order cannot be faulted on the ground that the DPRO was not asked by the DM to conduct the preliminary enquiry."

5. The aforesaid conclusions drawn by the Full Bench of this Court categorically demonstrate that for invoking the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947 for ceasing administrative and financial powers of an elected Gram Pradhan, the District Magistrate is required to institute a preliminary inquiry as per Rule 3 & 4 of the Rules of 1997 and only thereafter he can pass order for ceasing financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan.

6. Prima facie, I find that the provisions of the Act of 1947 and the Rules of 1997 have not been followed as no inquiry as contemplated under the Rule 3 & 4 of the Rules of 1997 has been instituted.

7. Large number of cases are coming before this Court every day where the orders were passed by the District Magistrates ceasing the administrative and financial powers of the Gram Pradhan without following the provisions contained under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act, 1947. The aforesaid provisions has been dealt with and interpreted in great detail by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav(supra) in the year 2010. The aforesaid judgement is valid even today. For the reasons best known to the District Magistrate, concerned in the entire State of U.P. they are not following provisions contained under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act, 1947 nor Rules 3 & 4 of the Rules, 1997. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon a circular issued by the State Government in this regard dated

18.04.2019, which was passed relying upon various judgements delivered by this Court from time to time. Apart from the same in the case of counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument, placed reliance upon paragraph 5 of the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Pushpa Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2014(1) ADJ 205. The paragraph 5 of the aforesaid order reads as follows:- "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the Rules of 1997 have not been followed at all. In the instant case, the order of the District Magistrate dated 15.5.2013, ceasing the financial and administrative powers, is not only erroneous, but, is perverse. It is not sufficient for the District Magistrate to hold that the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Something more was required to be stated. The authority was required to give reasons for rejecting the reply of the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid, the authority had to come to some prima facie conclusion that the petitioner was involved in the defalcation of the Gaon Sabha fund in order to pass an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers till conclusion of the final inquiry contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1996. In the instant case, the Court finds, that the District Magistrate has not given any reason as to why the reply was not satisfactory nor has given any reason as to how the petitioner committed a financial irregularity of the Gaon Sabha fund. Consequently, the order dated 15.5.2013 ceasing the financial and administrative powers cannot be sustained and is quashed. The Writ Petition No.31474 of 2013 is allowed"

8. It appears from perusal of the record that the respondent no.2-District Magistrate is not complying with the provisions contained under the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act, 1947 and Rules 3 & 4 of the Rules, 1947 as well as the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav (supra)and the circular issued by the State Government dated 18.04.2019.

9. The matter requires consideration.

10.The respondent no.1-Additional Chief Secretary (Panchayatraj), Govt. of U.P. at Lucknow is directed to take appropriate steps in the matter and submit action taken report before this Court within two weeks from today. The respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Sambhal is also directed to file his personal affidavit that under what circumstances such kind of order has been passed by him, which is complete violation of law.

11. List this matter on 28.05.2025. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as consequential order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Pramod Tripathi