Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Shiv Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 7.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no.2 dated 27.10.2025 seizing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Badhariya, Development Block Mirzapur, District Azamgarh.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, was initiated on a complaint made to the Chairman, Panchayati Raj Samiti, Vidhan Sabha Uttar Pradesh on which the Deputy Secretary wrote a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Government of UP, Panchayati Raj seeking a report. The said complaint was forwarded to the District Magistrate through the Director Panchayati Raj alongwith his letter dated 16.04.2025. The District Magistrate by its order dated 13.05.2025 constituted a three-member committee to conduct a preliminary inquiry as contemplated 2 WRIC No. 40359 of 2025 under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 (the Inquiry Rules, 1997).

4. In pursuance of the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry committee, a show cause notice dated 16.09.2025 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner by his representation dated

10.10.2025 submitted his explanation pursuant to which the District Magistrate passed impugned order dated

27.10.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complaint against the petitioner was not in accordance with the Rule 3 of the Inquiry Rules, 1997 to which an objection was taken by the petitioner, which was not considered. The reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the District Magistrate while passing the order impugned.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Smt. Ramshri Vs. State of UP and others, 2024 (1) ADJ 652, in which it has been held that non-filing of complaint in proper format is an irregularity, which was curable in case objection was raised at the right stage, even while submitting the reply. Relying on this observation of this Court, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had raised objection regarding the irregularity in the complaint which has not been looked into by the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order.

7. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not take into consideration the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of UP and another, 2011 (1) ALJ 694, in which the Full Bench has concluded that the Gram Pradhan cannot take objection against the nature of the complaint that it is not in consonance with Rule 3 of the Inquiry Rules, 1997. 3 WRIC No. 40359 of 2025

8. The other objection raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate has not recorded reasons for concluding that there was financial loss caused by the petitioner on the charges leveled against him. In exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g), after the stage of preliminary inquiry, the District Magistrate has only to record a prima facie satisfaction that, the charges exist, while seizing the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan. On the existence of prima facie charges no final conclusion can be drawn against him as that is subject to the formal inquiry to be held under Rule 6 of the Inquiry Rules, 1997.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.19848 of 2022 (Rajendra Singh Vs. State of UP and 6 others). Paragraph-9 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- "9. Cases involving a simple irregularity, not involving ingredient of intent or mens rea on part of the Gram Pradhan, may not warrant an action of suspension of financial and administrative powers pending a full-fledged enquiry. It is a matter of common knowledge, in the course of full-fledged enquiry, detailed examination of facts and allegations is made. Only thereafter firm conclusion may be drawn with respect to fulfilment or otherwise of conditions prescribed by Section-95(1)(g)(iii) of the Act. It also cannot be lost sight, the Gram Pradhan is a duly elected public representative. His functioning may not normally be discontinued or derailed on a simple complaint which is yet to be proven, at such enquiry."

10. In the case relied upon by the petitioner, the facts therein are totally different from the facts of the present case. In the case of Rajendra Singh (supra), the charge of financial irregularity was found to be prima facie existing on the ground the physical work was not verifiable 4 WRIC No. 40359 of 2025 measurement book. However, in the case in hand, admittedly GST has been paid at the rate of 18% which was required to be paid at the rate of 1%. Even though counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rate of GST varies with different nature of the work but there is no material on record to record a finding that in which work the GST at the rate of 18% was paid by the petitioner. Therefore, the necessity of a formal inquiry cannot be ruled out.

11. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the order of the District Magistrate dated 27.10.2025, warranting interference at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

12. It is further directed that the respondent no.2 shall complete the formal inquiry in pursuance of his order dated 27.10.2025, within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. November 25, 2025 Shahroz (Arun Kumar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Shiv Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 7.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no.2 dated 27.10.2025 seizing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Badhariya, Development Block Mirzapur, District Azamgarh.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, was initiated on a complaint made to the Chairman, Panchayati Raj Samiti, Vidhan Sabha Uttar Pradesh on which the Deputy Secretary wrote a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Government of UP, Panchayati Raj seeking a report. The said complaint was forwarded to the District Magistrate through the Director Panchayati Raj alongwith his letter dated 16.04.2025. The District Magistrate by its order dated 13.05.2025 constituted a three-member committee to conduct a preliminary inquiry as contemplated 2 WRIC No. 40359 of 2025 under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 (the Inquiry Rules, 1997).

4. In pursuance of the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry committee, a show cause notice dated 16.09.2025 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner by his representation dated

10.10.2025 submitted his explanation pursuant to which the District Magistrate passed impugned order dated

27.10.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complaint against the petitioner was not in accordance with the Rule 3 of the Inquiry Rules, 1997 to which an objection was taken by the petitioner, which was not considered. The reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the District Magistrate while passing the order impugned.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Smt. Ramshri Vs. State of UP and others, 2024 (1) ADJ 652, in which it has been held that non-filing of complaint in proper format is an irregularity, which was curable in case objection was raised at the right stage, even while submitting the reply. Relying on this observation of this Court, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had raised objection regarding the irregularity in the complaint which has not been looked into by the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order.

7. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not take into consideration the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of UP and another, 2011 (1) ALJ 694, in which the Full Bench has concluded that the Gram Pradhan cannot take objection against the nature of the complaint that it is not in consonance with Rule 3 of the Inquiry Rules, 1997. 3 WRIC No. 40359 of 2025

8. The other objection raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate has not recorded reasons for concluding that there was financial loss caused by the petitioner on the charges leveled against him. In exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g), after the stage of preliminary inquiry, the District Magistrate has only to record a prima facie satisfaction that, the charges exist, while seizing the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan. On the existence of prima facie charges no final conclusion can be drawn against him as that is subject to the formal inquiry to be held under Rule 6 of the Inquiry Rules, 1997.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.19848 of 2022 (Rajendra Singh Vs. State of UP and 6 others). Paragraph-9 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- "9. Cases involving a simple irregularity, not involving ingredient of intent or mens rea on part of the Gram Pradhan, may not warrant an action of suspension of financial and administrative powers pending a full-fledged enquiry. It is a matter of common knowledge, in the course of full-fledged enquiry, detailed examination of facts and allegations is made. Only thereafter firm conclusion may be drawn with respect to fulfilment or otherwise of conditions prescribed by Section-95(1)(g)(iii) of the Act. It also cannot be lost sight, the Gram Pradhan is a duly elected public representative. His functioning may not normally be discontinued or derailed on a simple complaint which is yet to be proven, at such enquiry."

10. In the case relied upon by the petitioner, the facts therein are totally different from the facts of the present case. In the case of Rajendra Singh (supra), the charge of financial irregularity was found to be prima facie existing on the ground the physical work was not verifiable 4 WRIC No. 40359 of 2025 measurement book. However, in the case in hand, admittedly GST has been paid at the rate of 18% which was required to be paid at the rate of 1%. Even though counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rate of GST varies with different nature of the work but there is no material on record to record a finding that in which work the GST at the rate of 18% was paid by the petitioner. Therefore, the necessity of a formal inquiry cannot be ruled out.

11. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the order of the District Magistrate dated 27.10.2025, warranting interference at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

12. It is further directed that the respondent no.2 shall complete the formal inquiry in pursuance of his order dated 27.10.2025, within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. November 25, 2025 Shahroz (Arun Kumar,J.)