High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.02.2025 whereby, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been ceased in exercise of power under section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The prayer with regard to annexure no.2 is not being pressed by the petitioner.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the complaint made against the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan, vide order dated 02.08.2023, the District Magistrate had appointed the Chief Veterinary Officer as an Inquiry Officer and one Junior Engineer to carry out the enquiry into the allegations levelled. It is stated that a preliminary enquiry report was furnished on 31.01.2024, which was found to be not complete, as such, the District Panchayat Raj Officer vide his letter dated 04.03.2024, directed the enquiry to be held in respect of the seventeen charges, as is evident from the order dated 04.07.2024 annexed as Annexure no.7 to the petition.

4. It is stated that based upon the inquiry conducted on the directions of the Panchayat Raj Officer through an order dated 04.03.2024, a fresh enquiry report was submitted and based upon the fresh enquiry report, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 08.01.2025 calling upon the petitioner to give a reply in respect of the seventeen charges, as noticed by the preliminary enquiry committee. The petitioner gave a reply to the said charges as alleged vide communication dated 20.01.2025. On the basis of the allegations levelled in the show cause notice and the reply submitted, an order came to be passed on 18.02.2025 whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were ceased pending a final enquiry.

5. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the said order is bad in law. He argues that the first order appointing the Inquiry Officer was passed by the District Magistrate. He next argues that although only a District Level Officer can be appointed as an Inquiry Officer, however, apart from the District Veterinary Officer, a Junior Engineer was also appointed, who is not a District Level Officer. He next argues that the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry committee appointed by the District Magistrate through his communication dated 02.08.2023, however, subsequent thereto, a fresh order was passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer on 04.03.2024 calling upon the enquiry committee to furnish a report in terms of seventeen charges.

6. It is further argued that the District Panchayat Raj Offier had no authority under the Act or the Rules to ask the enquiry committee to furnish a fresh report. He lastly argues that in the impugned order, no consideration of the defence taken by the petitioner has been dealt with particularly the evidences that were furnished by the petitioner in the form of affidavits have also not been taken into consideration, which is contrary to the judgement of the Full Bench in the case Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; 2010 SCC OnLine All 2702.

7. Standing Counsel, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, defend the action by arguing that the petitioner was found to be worthy in respect of seventeen infractions for which a preliminary enquiry report was furnished and thus, no interference is called upon. He argues that the final enquiry against the petitioner can be concluded expeditiously and suitable direction may be issued to that effect.

7. Considering the submissions made at the bar, section 95(1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act prescribes for removal of the Pradhan in the event of infractions as prescribed under section 95(1)(g). The proviso to said section confers the power which are interim in nature whereby the financial and administrative powers can be ceased pending a final order that is to be passed for removal of the Pradhan, as prescribed under section 95(1)(g) in accordance with the procedure to be followed for removal of the Pradhan as contained in U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. In terms of the said Rules; Rule 3 prescribes the procedure for filing the complaint; Rule 4 prescribes for power of the State Government on receipt of the complaint to direct the conducting of a preliminary enquiry; Rule 5 prescribes for the constitution of the Committee and Rule 6 of the said rules prescribes for the manner in which, the final enquiry is to be held. In terms of mandate of the said Rules, the complaint lies before the State Government. The State Government has delegated the said power to the District Magistrate. It is thus, the District Magistrate alone who can entertain a complaint and pass orders for a preliminary enquiry in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules.

8. In the present case, subsequent enquiry was directed on 04.03.2024 by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, who is clearly not empowered to direct the holding of the preliminary enquiry. Thus, to that extent, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance and is accepted. The second contention with regard to non-consideration of the defence by the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that although it was referred that a reply is to be given by the petitioner, there is no consideration of the defence taken by the petitioner. Even the documents as claimed by the petitioner to have been filed along with the defence, have not been noticed, on the contrary it has been noticed that no evidence was led. The manner in which the decision has been passed is contrary to the mandate of Division Bench Judgment in the case of Viveka Nand Yadav (supra).

9. Thus, finding the order dated 18.02.2025 to be violative of 1997 Rules as well as the judgment in the case of Viveka Nand Yadav (supra), the same cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents would however be entitled to initiate fresh enquiry, if so advised by an officer authorized under law. It is further clarified that the financial and administrative power of the petitioner shall stand restored. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 VNP/- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.02.2025 whereby, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been ceased in exercise of power under section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The prayer with regard to annexure no.2 is not being pressed by the petitioner.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the complaint made against the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan, vide order dated 02.08.2023, the District Magistrate had appointed the Chief Veterinary Officer as an Inquiry Officer and one Junior Engineer to carry out the enquiry into the allegations levelled. It is stated that a preliminary enquiry report was furnished on 31.01.2024, which was found to be not complete, as such, the District Panchayat Raj Officer vide his letter dated 04.03.2024, directed the enquiry to be held in respect of the seventeen charges, as is evident from the order dated 04.07.2024 annexed as Annexure no.7 to the petition.

4. It is stated that based upon the inquiry conducted on the directions of the Panchayat Raj Officer through an order dated 04.03.2024, a fresh enquiry report was submitted and based upon the fresh enquiry report, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 08.01.2025 calling upon the petitioner to give a reply in respect of the seventeen charges, as noticed by the preliminary enquiry committee. The petitioner gave a reply to the said charges as alleged vide communication dated 20.01.2025. On the basis of the allegations levelled in the show cause notice and the reply submitted, an order came to be passed on 18.02.2025 whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were ceased pending a final enquiry.

5. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the said order is bad in law. He argues that the first order appointing the Inquiry Officer was passed by the District Magistrate. He next argues that although only a District Level Officer can be appointed as an Inquiry Officer, however, apart from the District Veterinary Officer, a Junior Engineer was also appointed, who is not a District Level Officer. He next argues that the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry committee appointed by the District Magistrate through his communication dated 02.08.2023, however, subsequent thereto, a fresh order was passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer on 04.03.2024 calling upon the enquiry committee to furnish a report in terms of seventeen charges.

6. It is further argued that the District Panchayat Raj Offier had no authority under the Act or the Rules to ask the enquiry committee to furnish a fresh report. He lastly argues that in the impugned order, no consideration of the defence taken by the petitioner has been dealt with particularly the evidences that were furnished by the petitioner in the form of affidavits have also not been taken into consideration, which is contrary to the judgement of the Full Bench in the case Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; 2010 SCC OnLine All 2702.

7. Standing Counsel, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, defend the action by arguing that the petitioner was found to be worthy in respect of seventeen infractions for which a preliminary enquiry report was furnished and thus, no interference is called upon. He argues that the final enquiry against the petitioner can be concluded expeditiously and suitable direction may be issued to that effect.

7. Considering the submissions made at the bar, section 95(1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act prescribes for removal of the Pradhan in the event of infractions as prescribed under section 95(1)(g). The proviso to said section confers the power which are interim in nature whereby the financial and administrative powers can be ceased pending a final order that is to be passed for removal of the Pradhan, as prescribed under section 95(1)(g) in accordance with the procedure to be followed for removal of the Pradhan as contained in U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. In terms of the said Rules; Rule 3 prescribes the procedure for filing the complaint; Rule 4 prescribes for power of the State Government on receipt of the complaint to direct the conducting of a preliminary enquiry; Rule 5 prescribes for the constitution of the Committee and Rule 6 of the said rules prescribes for the manner in which, the final enquiry is to be held. In terms of mandate of the said Rules, the complaint lies before the State Government. The State Government has delegated the said power to the District Magistrate. It is thus, the District Magistrate alone who can entertain a complaint and pass orders for a preliminary enquiry in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules.

8. In the present case, subsequent enquiry was directed on 04.03.2024 by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, who is clearly not empowered to direct the holding of the preliminary enquiry. Thus, to that extent, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance and is accepted. The second contention with regard to non-consideration of the defence by the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that although it was referred that a reply is to be given by the petitioner, there is no consideration of the defence taken by the petitioner. Even the documents as claimed by the petitioner to have been filed along with the defence, have not been noticed, on the contrary it has been noticed that no evidence was led. The manner in which the decision has been passed is contrary to the mandate of Division Bench Judgment in the case of Viveka Nand Yadav (supra).

9. Thus, finding the order dated 18.02.2025 to be violative of 1997 Rules as well as the judgment in the case of Viveka Nand Yadav (supra), the same cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents would however be entitled to initiate fresh enquiry, if so advised by an officer authorized under law. It is further clarified that the financial and administrative power of the petitioner shall stand restored. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 VNP/- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench