High Court · 2025

enquiry was ordered. The petitioner challenged the said order of second enquiry by preferring Writ C No.2865 of 2022, in which an order came to be passed on 23.05.2022, quashing the order dated 09.05.2022.

3. The opposite party / complainant through his cousin brother got filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.62 of 2022 alleging encroachments over certain properties, in which an order came to be passed against the petitioner holding her to be guilty of not taking appropriate action and the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, vide order dated 31.05.2022, exercising the powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, stopped the financial and the administrative powers of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the order dated 31.05.2022, the petitioner preferred Writ C No.3755 of 2022, in which the order dated 31.05.2022 was quashed and the financial and administrative duties of the petitioner were restored.

4. It is next stated that the same complainant again made a same complaint before the Commissioner concerned on 23.05.2022 with a prayer to institute a high level technical team, on his complaint, one Pravidhik Parikshak, Mandaliya, TAC (Gramya Vikas), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya, having no authority, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 17.08.2022 and recommended for recovery of certain amounts. The petitioner once again preferred Writ C No.8515 of 2022 challenging the recovery order and the enquiry report dated 17.08.2022, however, the said writ is said to be still pending. Based upon the same enquiry report, which is subject matter of Writ C No.8515 of 2022, the District Magistrate concerned issued a notice dated 29.12.2023 calling upon the petitioner to give a reply, which was once again challenged by Writ C No.169 of

2024. The said writ petition is also said to be pending.

5. It is further stated that the complainants were the family members of the earlier complainant and again preferred a baseless complaint against the petitioner dated 05.02.2024 alleging financial irregularities by the petitioner. On the said complaint, on 15.02.2024, the District Agricultural Officer was appointed as an enquiry officer for conducting preliminary enquiry and submitting report, which was done on 10.07.2024. Based upon the said enquiry a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.07.2024, wherein three charges were levelled. The said show cause notice is the genesis and foundation leading to passing of the order impugned.

6. On perusal of the show cause notice, which is contained at page no. 97 of the paper book, reveals that the first charge was that contrary to the provisions of Government Order dated

26.04.2022, certain procurement were done from the persons who are related to Gram Pradhan, in which an amount of Rs.1,57,226/- was allegedly paid. The second charge was that certain payments were made through the personal account to the labourer, as per his affidavit, on 13.02.2024, which was contrary to the Government Order dated 14.12.2023. The third charge levelled against the petitioner was that you have inadvertently mentioned and admitted that instead of mentioning name of Ram Dulare's handpump No.111, you have mentioned handpump No.197 of one Ram Kumar who have deposed that no boring was done of their handpump which appears to be suspicious.

7. The petitioner replied to all the three charges thereafter. An opinion was called from the District Government Counsel (Civil), Sultanpur, which is also on record at page no.153 of the paper book. The District Government Counsel (Civil), Sultanpur, after analyzing all the charges and the reply of the petitioner, expressed his opinion indicating that no charge could be made out, as there is no material to suggest that the State has suffered any loss and the alleged minor acts against the Gram Pradhan can be overlooked. With regard to charge number two, a specific opinion was given on 28.06.2025 by the District Government Counsel (Civil), Sultanpur holding that no charge, as alleged, was made out against the petitioner. The petitioner had also given specific reply to all the three charges.

8. With regard to the first charge the submission of the petitioner was that the amount as reflected in the charge are erroneous and there appears to be a calculation mistake. While dealing with the first charge and the reply submitted, the District Magistrate has recorded a finding that in awarding of the contract to a related person was contrary to the Government Order and accepting the calculation of the petitioner held that irregular payments were made to the extent of Rs.1,07,874/-. With regard to charge number two, the contention of the petitioner was rejected. With regard to the charge number three also, the contention was rejected.

9. In the light of the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that in none of the charges, the petitioner has been found to be guilty of any financial and administrative impropriety, causing loss to the Government. He argues that in the show cause notice as well as in impugned order, there is no material to suggest that on account of alleged act any loss was caused to the Exchequer. He thus argues that without there being any material, the order impugned has been passed denuding the petitioner of her powers, which are vested in her favour by virtue of elections. It is thus prayed that the writ petition be allowed.

10. Learned Standing Counsel based upon the instructions dated

14.07.2025, which are taken on record, argues that in respect of the first charge, a finding has been recorded that irregular payments were made, as is evident from the impugned order. With regard to the second charge, curiously the instructions states that the second charge is not made out against the petitioner, clearly the instructions are contrary to the impugned order, which finds the petitioner guilty of charge number two also. With regard to the third charge, in terms of the instructions, it is stated that the reply submitted was not found to be satisfactory, in view of the affidavit given by the labourer and the two photographs, which appear to be of the same place. He thus argues that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, Shri R.D. Shahi, the counsel appearing for the complainant supports and adopts the arguments advanced by learned Standing Counsel.

12. After hearing counsel for the parties, the present case reflects the biased and baseless allegation which has been made against the petitioner in complaints after complaints by the same complainant, either themselves or through their family members. Unfortunately, the petitioner has been subjected to harassment for apparently no fault. The charge sheet as well as the order impugned do not even allege any financial loss caused and there are no allegation of any illegal payments by the petitioner. The difference between 'irregularity' and 'illegality' has been completely overlooked, particularly, in view of the harsh action that has been taken of removing an elected representative through an executive order.

13. I have already recorded that the instructions are also contrary to the impugned order, which further strengthens the fact that the petitioner has been victimized for no fault. The opinion of the District Government Counsel (Civil), Sultanpur sought by the respondents has been brushed aside while passing the impugned order. Finding the impugned order short of any valid accusation and finding against the petitioner, with regard to the powers conferred upon the petitioner by virtue of Rule 47 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is quashed. It is further made clear that any complaints by persons who are related to present complainant shall not be proceeded with unless something concrete is found against the petitioner.

14. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

15. The petitioner would be permitted to discharge her duties as the Gram Pradhan, including financial and administrative powers, which shall be restored forthwith. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Arnima ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

enquiry was ordered. The petitioner challenged the said order of second enquiry by preferring Writ C No.2865 of 2022, in which an order came to be passed on 23.05.2022, quashing the order dated 09.05.2022.

3. The opposite party / complainant through his cousin brother got filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.62 of 2022 alleging encroachments over certain properties, in which an order came to be passed against the petitioner holding her to be guilty of not taking appropriate action and the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, vide order dated 31.05.2022, exercising the powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, stopped the financial and the administrative powers of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the order dated 31.05.2022, the petitioner preferred Writ C No.3755 of 2022, in which the order dated 31.05.2022 was quashed and the financial and administrative duties of the petitioner were restored.

4. It is next stated that the same complainant again made a same complaint before the Commissioner concerned on 23.05.2022 with a prayer to institute a high level technical team, on his complaint, one Pravidhik Parikshak, Mandaliya, TAC (Gramya Vikas), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya, having no authority, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 17.08.2022 and recommended for recovery of certain amounts. The petitioner once again preferred Writ C No.8515 of 2022 challenging the recovery order and the enquiry report dated 17.08.2022, however, the said writ is said to be still pending. Based upon the same enquiry report, which is subject matter of Writ C No.8515 of 2022, the District Magistrate concerned issued a notice dated 29.12.2023 calling upon the petitioner to give a reply, which was once again challenged by Writ C No.169 of

2024. The said writ petition is also said to be pending.

5. It is further stated that the complainants were the family members of the earlier complainant and again preferred a baseless complaint against the petitioner dated 05.02.2024 alleging financial irregularities by the petitioner. On the said complaint, on 15.02.2024, the District Agricultural Officer was appointed as an enquiry officer for conducting preliminary enquiry and submitting report, which was done on 10.07.2024. Based upon the said enquiry a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.07.2024, wherein three charges were levelled. The said show cause notice is the genesis and foundation leading to passing of the order impugned.

6. On perusal of the show cause notice, which is contained at page no. 97 of the paper book, reveals that the first charge was that contrary to the provisions of Government Order dated

26.04.2022, certain procurement were done from the persons who are related to Gram Pradhan, in which an amount of Rs.1,57,226/- was allegedly paid. The second charge was that certain payments were made through the personal account to the labourer, as per his affidavit, on 13.02.2024, which was contrary to the Government Order dated 14.12.2023. The third charge levelled against the petitioner was that you have inadvertently mentioned and admitted that instead of mentioning name of Ram Dulare's handpump No.111, you have mentioned handpump No.197 of one Ram Kumar who have deposed that no boring was done of their handpump which appears to be suspicious.

7. The petitioner replied to all the three charges thereafter. An opinion was called from the District Government Counsel (Civil), Sultanpur, which is also on record at page no.153 of the paper book. The District Government Counsel (Civil), Sultanpur, after analyzing all the charges and the reply of the petitioner, expressed his opinion indicating that no charge could be made out, as there is no material to suggest that the State has suffered any loss and the alleged minor acts against the Gram Pradhan can be overlooked. With regard to charge number two, a specific opinion was given on 28.06.2025 by the District Government Counsel (Civil), Sultanpur holding that no charge, as alleged, was made out against the petitioner. The petitioner had also given specific reply to all the three charges.

8. With regard to the first charge the submission of the petitioner was that the amount as reflected in the charge are erroneous and there appears to be a calculation mistake. While dealing with the first charge and the reply submitted, the District Magistrate has recorded a finding that in awarding of the contract to a related person was contrary to the Government Order and accepting the calculation of the petitioner held that irregular payments were made to the extent of Rs.1,07,874/-. With regard to charge number two, the contention of the petitioner was rejected. With regard to the charge number three also, the contention was rejected.

9. In the light of the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that in none of the charges, the petitioner has been found to be guilty of any financial and administrative impropriety, causing loss to the Government. He argues that in the show cause notice as well as in impugned order, there is no material to suggest that on account of alleged act any loss was caused to the Exchequer. He thus argues that without there being any material, the order impugned has been passed denuding the petitioner of her powers, which are vested in her favour by virtue of elections. It is thus prayed that the writ petition be allowed.

10. Learned Standing Counsel based upon the instructions dated

14.07.2025, which are taken on record, argues that in respect of the first charge, a finding has been recorded that irregular payments were made, as is evident from the impugned order. With regard to the second charge, curiously the instructions states that the second charge is not made out against the petitioner, clearly the instructions are contrary to the impugned order, which finds the petitioner guilty of charge number two also. With regard to the third charge, in terms of the instructions, it is stated that the reply submitted was not found to be satisfactory, in view of the affidavit given by the labourer and the two photographs, which appear to be of the same place. He thus argues that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, Shri R.D. Shahi, the counsel appearing for the complainant supports and adopts the arguments advanced by learned Standing Counsel.

12. After hearing counsel for the parties, the present case reflects the biased and baseless allegation which has been made against the petitioner in complaints after complaints by the same complainant, either themselves or through their family members. Unfortunately, the petitioner has been subjected to harassment for apparently no fault. The charge sheet as well as the order impugned do not even allege any financial loss caused and there are no allegation of any illegal payments by the petitioner. The difference between 'irregularity' and 'illegality' has been completely overlooked, particularly, in view of the harsh action that has been taken of removing an elected representative through an executive order.

13. I have already recorded that the instructions are also contrary to the impugned order, which further strengthens the fact that the petitioner has been victimized for no fault. The opinion of the District Government Counsel (Civil), Sultanpur sought by the respondents has been brushed aside while passing the impugned order. Finding the impugned order short of any valid accusation and finding against the petitioner, with regard to the powers conferred upon the petitioner by virtue of Rule 47 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is quashed. It is further made clear that any complaints by persons who are related to present complainant shall not be proceeded with unless something concrete is found against the petitioner.

14. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

15. The petitioner would be permitted to discharge her duties as the Gram Pradhan, including financial and administrative powers, which shall be restored forthwith. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Arnima ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench