Judgement of the Full Bench in the case of Vivekanand vs State of U.P. (supra), Shamim Vs. State of U.P. and another

District Village Industries Officer, Amethi, whereby prima facie allegations were found to be correct. In terms of the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.02.2024, alleging 11 irregularities and calling for a reply as to why the final inquiry may not be instituted. The petitioner gave a reply to all the charges and denied the same on 18.03.2024. In pursuance of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to submit the evidences in support of his contention, which was also done on 01.06.2024. In pursuance of the reply and the evidences submitted by the petitioner, an order came to be passed on 11.09.2024, whereby the financial and administrative powers vested in the petitioner were seized and a three members committee was appointed for initiating and concluding a final inquiry as prescribed under Rule 6(3) of the Enquiry Rules. Being aggrieved against the order dated

11.09.2024, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ- C No.8956 of 2024, which was allowed vide judgement dated

22.10.2024 mainly on the ground that no reasoning has been recorded and the said was contrary to the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Meera Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ-C No.4740 of 2024 decided on 08.07.2024. The matter was remanded giving liberty to the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. After that remand, two steps were taken by the District Magistrate. Firstly issuing a show cause notice on 16.11.2024, which was similar to the earlier show cause notice in its content, issued earlier on

17.02.2024. Simultaneously, another order was passed restoring the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner. After receiving the second show cause notice, the petitioner claims to have submitted a reply on 07.01.2025, once again denying the allegations levelled. After receiving the said reply, the order impugned came to be passed on 16.01.2025, which is impugned and on record as Annexure No.1 to the petition.

6. A perusal of the said order indicates that the allegations of show cause notice were noticed, the preliminary inquiry report given against the petitioner was noticed, reply of the petitioner was also noticed and thereafter contents of fresh report was also noticed in column 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter recorded in the column 4 and referred to as Parikshan Aakhya is the report, which was submitted after the first reply was submitted by the petitioner and directions were issued for examining the reply given by the petitioner and for submitting a report.

7. In the light of the said factual contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the entire order does reflect any application of mind by the District Magistrate, which is bound to act as a quasi judicial authority as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shamim Vs. State of U.P. and others 2018(6) ADJ 1 (FB).

8. His next argument is that the certain averments are recorded, wherein apparently, the petitioner has admitted to certain guilts. No copy of the said statements were supplied to the petitioner. His next argument is that after the second show cause notice was given, the petitioner had filed a detailed reply. There is no consideration of the said second reply in the impugned order. He further argues that a similar power of ceasing the financial and administrative powers are conferred under Section 48(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act for removal of the President of a municipality and interpreting the said provision, a five Judge Bench of this Court had held that for removal/passing of any order, which affect the functioning of a statutory elected representative, which has constitutional backing also, the authority has to act as a quasi judicial authority and as passing of an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers envisaged civil consequences and are serious in nature, the said should record prima facie guilt before passing of any order. It was further held that the infractions inferred should not be with regard to mere use of power, which appeared to be simply unreasonable or inappropriate but should imply a 'willful' abuse or an 'intentional wrong'.

9. He argues that the Constitution Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Paras Jain Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2016 All 59 will apply with full force to the present case also, as the Gram Pradhans are elected in terms of the constitutional scheme as prescribed under Chapter 9 Article 243 of the Constitution of India and also backed by a statute. Denuding them of the powers, have to be strictly in consonance with the procedure prescribed. He thus argues that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

10. Learned Standing Counsel, based upon the instructions, argues that after the order of remand was passed by this Court, a fresh show cause notice was issued. Although, the same was strictly not required, as this Court had remanded and given liberty to pass a fresh order. However, by way of abundant caution, a fresh show cause notice was issued and the reply was also called for, which was submitted by the petitioner. He argues that the order impugned records the allegations, the findings of the preliminary inquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner as well as the Parikshan Aakhya, which was got done after the first reply was submitted by the petitioner and thus, there is adequate application of mind, which justifies the exercise of powers for ceasing the financial and administrative powers.

11. He argues that the final inquiry is yet to be concluded and at this stage, there is no useful purpose for restoring the financial and administrative powers. He further argues that the said powers have been ceased only till the conclusion of the final inquiry and as such, no injury is being caused to the petitioner because of the order impugned, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. In the backdrop of said submissions, what transpires from the order dated 16th January, 2025 is that the allegations were referred, the preliminary inquiry report was referred, the first reply of the petitioner was also referred and the Parikshan Aakhya got done on the basis of the first reply submitted by the petitioner was referred to form a view that there existed material to exercise the powers for ceasing the financial and administrative powers vested by virtue of an election in the petitioner.

13. The entire order does not reflect any application of mind to the effect that the infractions levelled and the material collected, prima facie reflects that there was any 'willful abuse' or 'intentional wrong' at the instance of the petitioner while acting as Pradhan in terms of the duties prescribed upon him by virtue of Rule 47 of the Panchayat Raj Rules. Following the Judgement of the Full Bench in the case of Vivekanand Vs. State of U.P. (supra), Shamim Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra) as well as Paras Jain Vs. State of U.P. (supra), there is no room to hold that the two orders satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There being no application of mind and no recording of a finding that there was deliberate or willful misuse for an intentional wrong committed by the petitioner in relation to the duties prescribed on the Pradhan under Rule 47, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is quashed, consequently powers of the petitioner shall stand restored.

14. However, the respondent may continue and conclude the final inquiry as has been instituted in accordance with law.

15. It is also necessary to notice that this Court has not gone into the averments made by the petitioner with regard to the non-supply of the documents, which are referred to in the order impugned, which fact had led this Court to refer the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration in the judgement of this Court in the case of Writ-C No.905 of 2025; Brij Mohan Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on

18.02.2025.

16. Let a copy of this order be also placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in furtherance of the order dated 18.02.2025.

17. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of above. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Ashutosh ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

District Village Industries Officer, Amethi, whereby prima facie allegations were found to be correct. In terms of the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.02.2024, alleging 11 irregularities and calling for a reply as to why the final inquiry may not be instituted. The petitioner gave a reply to all the charges and denied the same on 18.03.2024. In pursuance of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to submit the evidences in support of his contention, which was also done on 01.06.2024. In pursuance of the reply and the evidences submitted by the petitioner, an order came to be passed on 11.09.2024, whereby the financial and administrative powers vested in the petitioner were seized and a three members committee was appointed for initiating and concluding a final inquiry as prescribed under Rule 6(3) of the Enquiry Rules. Being aggrieved against the order dated

11.09.2024, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ- C No.8956 of 2024, which was allowed vide judgement dated

22.10.2024 mainly on the ground that no reasoning has been recorded and the said was contrary to the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Meera Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ-C No.4740 of 2024 decided on 08.07.2024. The matter was remanded giving liberty to the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. After that remand, two steps were taken by the District Magistrate. Firstly issuing a show cause notice on 16.11.2024, which was similar to the earlier show cause notice in its content, issued earlier on

17.02.2024. Simultaneously, another order was passed restoring the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner. After receiving the second show cause notice, the petitioner claims to have submitted a reply on 07.01.2025, once again denying the allegations levelled. After receiving the said reply, the order impugned came to be passed on 16.01.2025, which is impugned and on record as Annexure No.1 to the petition.

6. A perusal of the said order indicates that the allegations of show cause notice were noticed, the preliminary inquiry report given against the petitioner was noticed, reply of the petitioner was also noticed and thereafter contents of fresh report was also noticed in column 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter recorded in the column 4 and referred to as Parikshan Aakhya is the report, which was submitted after the first reply was submitted by the petitioner and directions were issued for examining the reply given by the petitioner and for submitting a report.

7. In the light of the said factual contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the entire order does reflect any application of mind by the District Magistrate, which is bound to act as a quasi judicial authority as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shamim Vs. State of U.P. and others 2018(6) ADJ 1 (FB).

8. His next argument is that the certain averments are recorded, wherein apparently, the petitioner has admitted to certain guilts. No copy of the said statements were supplied to the petitioner. His next argument is that after the second show cause notice was given, the petitioner had filed a detailed reply. There is no consideration of the said second reply in the impugned order. He further argues that a similar power of ceasing the financial and administrative powers are conferred under Section 48(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act for removal of the President of a municipality and interpreting the said provision, a five Judge Bench of this Court had held that for removal/passing of any order, which affect the functioning of a statutory elected representative, which has constitutional backing also, the authority has to act as a quasi judicial authority and as passing of an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers envisaged civil consequences and are serious in nature, the said should record prima facie guilt before passing of any order. It was further held that the infractions inferred should not be with regard to mere use of power, which appeared to be simply unreasonable or inappropriate but should imply a 'willful' abuse or an 'intentional wrong'.

9. He argues that the Constitution Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Paras Jain Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2016 All 59 will apply with full force to the present case also, as the Gram Pradhans are elected in terms of the constitutional scheme as prescribed under Chapter 9 Article 243 of the Constitution of India and also backed by a statute. Denuding them of the powers, have to be strictly in consonance with the procedure prescribed. He thus argues that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

10. Learned Standing Counsel, based upon the instructions, argues that after the order of remand was passed by this Court, a fresh show cause notice was issued. Although, the same was strictly not required, as this Court had remanded and given liberty to pass a fresh order. However, by way of abundant caution, a fresh show cause notice was issued and the reply was also called for, which was submitted by the petitioner. He argues that the order impugned records the allegations, the findings of the preliminary inquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner as well as the Parikshan Aakhya, which was got done after the first reply was submitted by the petitioner and thus, there is adequate application of mind, which justifies the exercise of powers for ceasing the financial and administrative powers.

11. He argues that the final inquiry is yet to be concluded and at this stage, there is no useful purpose for restoring the financial and administrative powers. He further argues that the said powers have been ceased only till the conclusion of the final inquiry and as such, no injury is being caused to the petitioner because of the order impugned, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. In the backdrop of said submissions, what transpires from the order dated 16th January, 2025 is that the allegations were referred, the preliminary inquiry report was referred, the first reply of the petitioner was also referred and the Parikshan Aakhya got done on the basis of the first reply submitted by the petitioner was referred to form a view that there existed material to exercise the powers for ceasing the financial and administrative powers vested by virtue of an election in the petitioner.

13. The entire order does not reflect any application of mind to the effect that the infractions levelled and the material collected, prima facie reflects that there was any 'willful abuse' or 'intentional wrong' at the instance of the petitioner while acting as Pradhan in terms of the duties prescribed upon him by virtue of Rule 47 of the Panchayat Raj Rules. Following the Judgement of the Full Bench in the case of Vivekanand Vs. State of U.P. (supra), Shamim Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra) as well as Paras Jain Vs. State of U.P. (supra), there is no room to hold that the two orders satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There being no application of mind and no recording of a finding that there was deliberate or willful misuse for an intentional wrong committed by the petitioner in relation to the duties prescribed on the Pradhan under Rule 47, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is quashed, consequently powers of the petitioner shall stand restored.

14. However, the respondent may continue and conclude the final inquiry as has been instituted in accordance with law.

15. It is also necessary to notice that this Court has not gone into the averments made by the petitioner with regard to the non-supply of the documents, which are referred to in the order impugned, which fact had led this Court to refer the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration in the judgement of this Court in the case of Writ-C No.905 of 2025; Brij Mohan Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on

18.02.2025.

16. Let a copy of this order be also placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in furtherance of the order dated 18.02.2025.

17. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of above. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Ashutosh ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench