Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents nos.1 to 4 and Sri Kundan Kumar, holding brief of Sri Anoop Pandey, who has filed caveat application on behalf of complainant.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Prayagraj, dated order of

10.10.2025, passed in exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, seizing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of village Onaur in District Prayagraj.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that on a complaint made by one Ganesh Prasad a preliminary enquiry under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 was initiated by the order of the District Magistrate dated

30.05.2023 by appointing District Youth Welfare Officer, who submitted his enquiry report dated 24.07.2023. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.08.2023 by the respondent no.2. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on

05.09.2023. After about two years an order dated 16.07.2025 was passed seizing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner without recording any prima facie satisfaction against him. The order dated

16.07.2025 was challenged in Writ-C No.24495 of 2025, which was allowed by the order dated 29.07.2025 with liberty to the District 2 WRIC No. 36932 of 2025 Magistrate, Prayagraj to pass a fresh order if so advised. The respondent no.2 by the order dated 10.10.2025 has again seized the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947 with a direction of formal enquiry in respect of financial irregularity, in setting up street lights, for a sum of Rs.4050/- and development work of laying interlocking bricks.

4. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.2, while passing the fresh order, has not considered the findings of the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by the petitioner and, therefore, the order dated 10.10.2025 is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has tried to defend the order of respondent no.2.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. The order dated 10.10.2025 refers to earlier order passed by respondent no.2 on 16.07.2025, after which order of this Court dated 29.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No.24495 of 2025 has been quoted. Respondent no.2 thereafter without considering the findings of the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by the petitioner has again proceeded to pass the order impugned dated 10.10.2025 seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.

9. Perusal of the order dated 10.10.2025 does not show any application of mind to the charges levelled against the petitioner in reference with the findings of the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by him.

10. The question as to what would be the manner of exercising powers by the State Government/District Magistrate for ceasing financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan fell for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Hafiz Ataullah Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (2) UPLBEC 889. A subsequent Full Bench in the case of Shamim (supra) has examined all previous judgments and the powers of District Magistrate for the purposes of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments have been noticed by the Full Bench to observe that 3 WRIC No. 36932 of 2025 Panchayats and Municipalities have now been conferred constitutional status. The question for consideration before the Full Bench has been noticed in para 23 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereinafter:- "23. In the backdrop of the legislative history and the status of an elected Pradhan, after the Constitutional Amendment, the primary issue is whether the power exercised by the State Government/District Magistrate under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of Panchayat Raj Act is a purely administrative or a quasi judicial. In other words whether State Government/District Magistrate while exercising power under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) is a Tribunal." While answering the reference, the Full Bench observed as under in para 37 of the judgment in Shamim (supra):- "37. In Vivekanand, Hafiz Ataullah Ansari and thereafter reiterated in Paras Jain that the elected representative would have to be given an opportunity to raise objection to the findings returned in the preliminary enquiry and his/or her objections will have be considered, though prima facie, by the State Government/District Magistrate before an order ceasing the financial and administrative power and functions is passed. The consequence of the order passed in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) is serious consequence as it divests the elected representative from exercising power until exonerated in final enquiry and the decision of the State Government is final. The decision taken by the State Government is not based on any expediency or policy of the State, rather, it is a statutory power conferred upon the State Government exercising inherent judicial power after confronting the elected representative, with show cause notice based on the preliminary report, thereafter, taking a decision upon due application of mind on the objections of the elected Pradhan. Once such an order is passed, it is not open for the State Government to either review or modify the order during the course of final enquiry. The order, therefore, finally decides the issue between Pradhan and the Authority (State Government) in so far it relates to exercise of financial and administrative power. The office of the local body is an elected office of the constitutional democratic institution; the elected head is not a government servant and it would be improper to 4 WRIC No. 36932 of 2025 compare these proceeding with departmental proceeding in service jurisprudence. A head of a local body is elected for a limited term. If during the removal proceedings, he is denuded from exercising financial and administrative powers then even if he is exonerated in the enquiry the time spent during enquiry is lost, he does not get his period extended. The consideration about the presence of all or some of the trappings of a court is really not decisive. The main and basic test is whether the adjudicating power which a particular authority is empowered to exercise has been conferred on it by a statute and can be described as part of the State's inherent power exercised in discharging its judicial function. Applying this test there can be no doubt that the power which the State Government/District Magistrate exercises under proviso to Section 95(1)(g) is a quasi-judicial power exercised by a quasi-judicial authority."

11. Since the power to be exercised by the District Magistrate is quasi- judicial in nature and has serious consequences for elected representative, it is expected that the District Magistrate would apply his mind to the nature of charges levelled and would record a prima facie satisfaction with regard to existence of materials collected in the preliminary enquiry, which necessitates holding of regular enquiry and justify seizure of financial and administrative powers of Pradhan. The District Magistrate, therefore, is expected to look into the nature of charges as also the defence set up by the elected Pradhan or else the very object of issuing show cause notice would be frustrated. Law is otherwise settled that reason is the soul of an order and considerations which have prevailed in passing of the order must be reflected from the order itself. In such circumstances this Court finds that the order of District Magistrate is wanting on relevant parameters, noticed above, and therefore the order impugned cannot be sustained.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Prayagraj, dated 10.10.2025, seizing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

12. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Order dated 10.10.2025, passed by the respondent no.2, is set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to pass a fresh order after considering preliminary enquiry report and the 5 WRIC No. 36932 of 2025 explanation submitted by the petitioner, recording his prima facie satisfaction for holding a formal enquiry, if required, against the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. An opportunity of hearing would also be afforded to the petitioner before passing any fresh order. October 29, 2025 Ashok Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents nos.1 to 4 and Sri Kundan Kumar, holding brief of Sri Anoop Pandey, who has filed caveat application on behalf of complainant.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Prayagraj, dated order of

10.10.2025, passed in exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, seizing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of village Onaur in District Prayagraj.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that on a complaint made by one Ganesh Prasad a preliminary enquiry under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 was initiated by the order of the District Magistrate dated

30.05.2023 by appointing District Youth Welfare Officer, who submitted his enquiry report dated 24.07.2023. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.08.2023 by the respondent no.2. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on

05.09.2023. After about two years an order dated 16.07.2025 was passed seizing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner without recording any prima facie satisfaction against him. The order dated

16.07.2025 was challenged in Writ-C No.24495 of 2025, which was allowed by the order dated 29.07.2025 with liberty to the District 2 WRIC No. 36932 of 2025 Magistrate, Prayagraj to pass a fresh order if so advised. The respondent no.2 by the order dated 10.10.2025 has again seized the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947 with a direction of formal enquiry in respect of financial irregularity, in setting up street lights, for a sum of Rs.4050/- and development work of laying interlocking bricks.

4. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.2, while passing the fresh order, has not considered the findings of the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by the petitioner and, therefore, the order dated 10.10.2025 is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has tried to defend the order of respondent no.2.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. The order dated 10.10.2025 refers to earlier order passed by respondent no.2 on 16.07.2025, after which order of this Court dated 29.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No.24495 of 2025 has been quoted. Respondent no.2 thereafter without considering the findings of the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by the petitioner has again proceeded to pass the order impugned dated 10.10.2025 seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.

9. Perusal of the order dated 10.10.2025 does not show any application of mind to the charges levelled against the petitioner in reference with the findings of the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by him.

10. The question as to what would be the manner of exercising powers by the State Government/District Magistrate for ceasing financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan fell for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Hafiz Ataullah Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (2) UPLBEC 889. A subsequent Full Bench in the case of Shamim (supra) has examined all previous judgments and the powers of District Magistrate for the purposes of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments have been noticed by the Full Bench to observe that 3 WRIC No. 36932 of 2025 Panchayats and Municipalities have now been conferred constitutional status. The question for consideration before the Full Bench has been noticed in para 23 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereinafter:- "23. In the backdrop of the legislative history and the status of an elected Pradhan, after the Constitutional Amendment, the primary issue is whether the power exercised by the State Government/District Magistrate under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of Panchayat Raj Act is a purely administrative or a quasi judicial. In other words whether State Government/District Magistrate while exercising power under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) is a Tribunal." While answering the reference, the Full Bench observed as under in para 37 of the judgment in Shamim (supra):- "37. In Vivekanand, Hafiz Ataullah Ansari and thereafter reiterated in Paras Jain that the elected representative would have to be given an opportunity to raise objection to the findings returned in the preliminary enquiry and his/or her objections will have be considered, though prima facie, by the State Government/District Magistrate before an order ceasing the financial and administrative power and functions is passed. The consequence of the order passed in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) is serious consequence as it divests the elected representative from exercising power until exonerated in final enquiry and the decision of the State Government is final. The decision taken by the State Government is not based on any expediency or policy of the State, rather, it is a statutory power conferred upon the State Government exercising inherent judicial power after confronting the elected representative, with show cause notice based on the preliminary report, thereafter, taking a decision upon due application of mind on the objections of the elected Pradhan. Once such an order is passed, it is not open for the State Government to either review or modify the order during the course of final enquiry. The order, therefore, finally decides the issue between Pradhan and the Authority (State Government) in so far it relates to exercise of financial and administrative power. The office of the local body is an elected office of the constitutional democratic institution; the elected head is not a government servant and it would be improper to 4 WRIC No. 36932 of 2025 compare these proceeding with departmental proceeding in service jurisprudence. A head of a local body is elected for a limited term. If during the removal proceedings, he is denuded from exercising financial and administrative powers then even if he is exonerated in the enquiry the time spent during enquiry is lost, he does not get his period extended. The consideration about the presence of all or some of the trappings of a court is really not decisive. The main and basic test is whether the adjudicating power which a particular authority is empowered to exercise has been conferred on it by a statute and can be described as part of the State's inherent power exercised in discharging its judicial function. Applying this test there can be no doubt that the power which the State Government/District Magistrate exercises under proviso to Section 95(1)(g) is a quasi-judicial power exercised by a quasi-judicial authority."

11. Since the power to be exercised by the District Magistrate is quasi- judicial in nature and has serious consequences for elected representative, it is expected that the District Magistrate would apply his mind to the nature of charges levelled and would record a prima facie satisfaction with regard to existence of materials collected in the preliminary enquiry, which necessitates holding of regular enquiry and justify seizure of financial and administrative powers of Pradhan. The District Magistrate, therefore, is expected to look into the nature of charges as also the defence set up by the elected Pradhan or else the very object of issuing show cause notice would be frustrated. Law is otherwise settled that reason is the soul of an order and considerations which have prevailed in passing of the order must be reflected from the order itself. In such circumstances this Court finds that the order of District Magistrate is wanting on relevant parameters, noticed above, and therefore the order impugned cannot be sustained.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Prayagraj, dated 10.10.2025, seizing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

12. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Order dated 10.10.2025, passed by the respondent no.2, is set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to pass a fresh order after considering preliminary enquiry report and the 5 WRIC No. 36932 of 2025 explanation submitted by the petitioner, recording his prima facie satisfaction for holding a formal enquiry, if required, against the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. An opportunity of hearing would also be afforded to the petitioner before passing any fresh order. October 29, 2025 Ashok Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.)