High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 24.02.2025 whereby, the financial and administrative power of the Gram Pradhan have been ceased in exercise of powers conferred under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.

4. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint was made by a person alleging that an order was passed for rejuvenation and clearing of a pond, however, the said work had to be done by MGNREGA workers and instead of the said, the works were being carried out with the help of the tractors. Based upon the said complaint, an order was passed for instituting a preliminary inquiry to be conducted by the Chief Veterinary Officer to be assisted by the Junior Engineer, IRD, Fatehpur Chaurasi, Unnao. It appears that the said Enquiry Committee submitted a preliminary inquiry report and based upon the said preliminary inquiry report, a show cause notice dated 15.02.2024 was issued to the petitioner. The said show cause notice has been filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

5. A perusal of the show cause notice reveals that there was a mention of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee in its preliminary inquiry report and thereafter, it was mentioned that the show cause notice was being issued with an intent that the amount of Rs.95,000/- allegedly misappropriated, was liable to be paid by the petitioner to the extent of the half of the said amount and to that extent, he was asked to submit reply. Admittedly the petitioner did not give reply to the show cause notice which led to passing of the order impugned dated 24.02.2025 ceasing the administrative and financial power of the petitioner.

6. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that as the complaint was confined to the allegation that the works were not being done through MGNREGA workers and were being done through tractors, the enquiry ought to have been confined to the said, however, the preliminary inquiry report suggests that there exists no pond. To the said, he submits that the work for rejuvenation of pond was sanctioned for a total sum of Rs.7,45,593/-, however, on the complaint being made, works had to be stopped midway and up till now, an amount of Rs.95,000/- and odd were paid, which were paid to the accounts of the MGNREGA workers as is evident from the documents annexed by him. He thus argues that there is no misappropriation of any amount to the detriment of the petitioner, which has been established. He further argues that the show cause notice was vague in terms of any allegation that the petitioner has misused his powers as a Gram Pradhan. He admits that although the petitioner had not filed a reply, however, the show cause notice cannot be termed as a valid notice in terms of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules read with Section 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

7. Learned Standing Counsel based upon the instructions opposes the said plea by arguing that in the preliminary inquiry, a specific finding was recorded by the Enquiry Committee that the pond was not in existence and an amount of Rs.95,000/- has been drawn which clearly established the complicity of the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan, which was liable to be paid by him to the extent of half of the said amount. As neither the amount was paid nor any exercise in pursuance thereto was made, the order impugned has rightly been passed ceasing the administrative and financial power of the Gram Prahdan.

8. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the power to remove the Gram Pradhan is prescribed under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and during the pendency of the proceedings for removal, as an interim measure, powers can be exercised in terms of the proviso to Section 95(1)(g). The said powers in terms of the proviso can be exercised after the compliance of the procedure as prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, wherein Rule 3, the procedure for conducting a preliminary inquiry is specified which is to be furnished in terms of the Rule 4 and the Rule 6 of the said Rules prescribed for inquiry after the compliance of Rule 3 and Rule 4. In the present case, the show cause notice itself does not allege any infraction against the petitioner in discharge of his duties as Gram Prahdan as specified under Section 47 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. The show cause notice from its contents reveals that a final view was formed based upon the preliminary inquiry report, which is also contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 427. Even in terms of the said order, there is no allegation against the petitioner of having misappropriated any amount, which is not even alleged in the complaint filed by the complainant and thus exercise of powers ceasing the administrative and financial powers is wholly bad in law.

9. The show cause notice, in the present case, cannot be termed as a compliance of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules wherein it is prescribed that based upon the preliminary inquiry, a prima facie, view has to be formed and a specific charge has been levelled which could be replied by a Pradhan to whom a show cause notice is issued. The show cause notice as being in non- compliance of the specific Rules and the vague in terms of the allegations against the petitioner, any action subsequent thereto including the ceasing of the financial and administrative power clearly cannot be sustained. In view thereof, the order dated 24.02.2025 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

10. The respondents would be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice, if so advised and the petitioner can be called upon to file a reply to the specific allegation levelled in the said show cause notice and after considering his reply, the respondents would be at liberty to pass a fresh order, if so advised in accordance with law.

11. It is further clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to discharge his financial and administrative powers as has been done prior to passing of the order impugned dated 24.02.2025. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 24.02.2025 whereby, the financial and administrative power of the Gram Pradhan have been ceased in exercise of powers conferred under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.

4. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint was made by a person alleging that an order was passed for rejuvenation and clearing of a pond, however, the said work had to be done by MGNREGA workers and instead of the said, the works were being carried out with the help of the tractors. Based upon the said complaint, an order was passed for instituting a preliminary inquiry to be conducted by the Chief Veterinary Officer to be assisted by the Junior Engineer, IRD, Fatehpur Chaurasi, Unnao. It appears that the said Enquiry Committee submitted a preliminary inquiry report and based upon the said preliminary inquiry report, a show cause notice dated 15.02.2024 was issued to the petitioner. The said show cause notice has been filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

5. A perusal of the show cause notice reveals that there was a mention of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee in its preliminary inquiry report and thereafter, it was mentioned that the show cause notice was being issued with an intent that the amount of Rs.95,000/- allegedly misappropriated, was liable to be paid by the petitioner to the extent of the half of the said amount and to that extent, he was asked to submit reply. Admittedly the petitioner did not give reply to the show cause notice which led to passing of the order impugned dated 24.02.2025 ceasing the administrative and financial power of the petitioner.

6. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that as the complaint was confined to the allegation that the works were not being done through MGNREGA workers and were being done through tractors, the enquiry ought to have been confined to the said, however, the preliminary inquiry report suggests that there exists no pond. To the said, he submits that the work for rejuvenation of pond was sanctioned for a total sum of Rs.7,45,593/-, however, on the complaint being made, works had to be stopped midway and up till now, an amount of Rs.95,000/- and odd were paid, which were paid to the accounts of the MGNREGA workers as is evident from the documents annexed by him. He thus argues that there is no misappropriation of any amount to the detriment of the petitioner, which has been established. He further argues that the show cause notice was vague in terms of any allegation that the petitioner has misused his powers as a Gram Pradhan. He admits that although the petitioner had not filed a reply, however, the show cause notice cannot be termed as a valid notice in terms of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules read with Section 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

7. Learned Standing Counsel based upon the instructions opposes the said plea by arguing that in the preliminary inquiry, a specific finding was recorded by the Enquiry Committee that the pond was not in existence and an amount of Rs.95,000/- has been drawn which clearly established the complicity of the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan, which was liable to be paid by him to the extent of half of the said amount. As neither the amount was paid nor any exercise in pursuance thereto was made, the order impugned has rightly been passed ceasing the administrative and financial power of the Gram Prahdan.

8. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the power to remove the Gram Pradhan is prescribed under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and during the pendency of the proceedings for removal, as an interim measure, powers can be exercised in terms of the proviso to Section 95(1)(g). The said powers in terms of the proviso can be exercised after the compliance of the procedure as prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, wherein Rule 3, the procedure for conducting a preliminary inquiry is specified which is to be furnished in terms of the Rule 4 and the Rule 6 of the said Rules prescribed for inquiry after the compliance of Rule 3 and Rule 4. In the present case, the show cause notice itself does not allege any infraction against the petitioner in discharge of his duties as Gram Prahdan as specified under Section 47 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. The show cause notice from its contents reveals that a final view was formed based upon the preliminary inquiry report, which is also contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 427. Even in terms of the said order, there is no allegation against the petitioner of having misappropriated any amount, which is not even alleged in the complaint filed by the complainant and thus exercise of powers ceasing the administrative and financial powers is wholly bad in law.

9. The show cause notice, in the present case, cannot be termed as a compliance of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules wherein it is prescribed that based upon the preliminary inquiry, a prima facie, view has to be formed and a specific charge has been levelled which could be replied by a Pradhan to whom a show cause notice is issued. The show cause notice as being in non- compliance of the specific Rules and the vague in terms of the allegations against the petitioner, any action subsequent thereto including the ceasing of the financial and administrative power clearly cannot be sustained. In view thereof, the order dated 24.02.2025 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

10. The respondents would be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice, if so advised and the petitioner can be called upon to file a reply to the specific allegation levelled in the said show cause notice and after considering his reply, the respondents would be at liberty to pass a fresh order, if so advised in accordance with law.

11. It is further clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to discharge his financial and administrative powers as has been done prior to passing of the order impugned dated 24.02.2025. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench