Abhishek Dixit v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayatiraj Lko And

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Ganj, Jalalabad, Vikas Kand Malwan, Bilgram, District Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi, U.P. in the bye election held in 2022. In the meeting of the Zila Panchayat Board, Shri Ravi Kanaujiya, Member Zila Panchayat moved a complaint against the petitioner, alleging that he was conducting work of Gram Panchayat from some other place instead of the office earmarked, which is against Government Order. The District Magistrate directed District Development Officer vide order dated 25/01/2025 inquire and report. The District Development Officer filed his inquiry report on 19/02/2025, in which the petitioner was found guilty. The petitioner and Shri Ram Kishor, then Secretary of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, were 3 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 issued notice to file a reply within 15 days. The primarily inquiry was conducted in cursory manner, wherein the petitioner has been found guilty, and the District Magistrate, by order dated 06/10/2025, finding him guilty in the preliminary inquiry of misuse of financial and administrative powers and ordered that his financial and administrative powers are seized and directed that his powers shall be exercised by a Committee constituted by the government comprising three members of the Gram Panchayat, which led to filing of present writ petition.

5. He also stated in the impugned order that a final inquiry will be conducted against the Gram Pradhan in respect of said charges. The financial and administrative powers of the petitioner are seized under Section 95 (1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1956. He next submitted that the custodian of official records is not the Gram Pradhan but the Panchayat Secretary, and he has stated in his reply that he was not given the charge of records by his predecessor when he was posted in the said Gram Panchayat. Therefore, in absence of relevant documents, the preliminary inquiry conducted against the petitioner is farce, and the some interim order may kindly be passed to restore the financial and executive powers of the Gram Pradhan during pendency of the final inquiry.

6. Learned State Counsel has raised strong objections towards the contention made by the counsel of the petitioner and he submitted that the District Magistrate has found him guilty of a number of financial irregularities and embezzlement of money 4 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 allotted to the Gram Panchayat and the findings him of guilty in primary inquiry, he has seized his financial and executive powers by the impugned order. The order of the District Magistrate, which is impugned in the present petition, is elaborate and self-contained. He has also filed his instructions received from the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hardoi, and produced the same for perusal of the Court. He also submitted that financial powers are exercised by the Gram Pradhan and the Panchayat Secretary jointly, and the District Magistrate has found both of them guilty of financial irregularities.

7. Learned counsel of the petitioner also submitted that the charges the District Magistrate, Hardoi, himself admitted in his letter addressed to the concerned officer, dated 02/03/2023, that in Panchayat Bhawan of said Village - Ganj Jalalabad, a Police Outpost, and the Office of the Assistant Consolidation Officer are being operated. Due to which it is not possible to carry out the proceedings of the Gram Sachiwalaya of the said village in a smooth manner. Even, the petitioner has himself raised this issue before the District Land Officer as well as Principal Secretary, Home/Intelligence by his letter dated 21/03/2023. For want of relevant records, the petitioner could not reply to the allegations leveled against him by the complainant, Kuldeep Singh. Panchayat Secretary wrote a letter to BDU, Malawan, Hardoi on 26.08.2025 requesting him to direct the previous Panchayat Secretary to hold over the files other than those received by him in-charge.

8. From perusal of record it appears that the District Magistrate 5 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 exercising its power invoking the provisions of section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 r.w. notification no.33-1- 97-123/97 dated 30.04.1997 passed an order seizing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner vide its order dated 30.07.2025 with immediate effect finding the matter to be enquired in the final enquiry to be constituted comprising (i). Deputy Director Agriculture, Hardoi, (ii). Executive Engineer, P.W.D, Construction Division-II, Bilgram, Hardoi and further ordered to constitute a three members committee to function and perform the works and duties of village Pradhan, however, despite three meetings have been convened which were foiled at the behest of the complainant through local MLA and no committee could be formed as the complainant failed to win over the members to get a person appointed of his choice and as such it is yet to be constituted and as such the village is functioning without its duly elected Pradhan for the last three months.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner assailed the above order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Opp. Party No.2 by filing a writ petition bearing Writ C No. 8043 of 2025, titled "Abhishek Dixit vs. State of U.P. and Others" before this Hon'ble Court which was allowed directing the competent authority to pass a fresh order after complying the principles of natural justice vide order dated 11.09.2025 which is already annexed as Annexure No. P-2 to this writ petition. 6 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025

10. In the aforesaid order, this Court observed that the entire case is based upon non-grant of a pre-decisional hearing to the petitioner. It is clear that the show cause notice was given and the petitioner ought to have filed a reply, but without adjudicating the matter, the respondents are directed to grant a post decisional hearing. The petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice, positively on or before 20/09/2025. On receipt of the reply, the District Magistrate shall thereafter pass fresh order, taking into consideration the preliminary inquiry report and the objections/reply filed by the petitioner, within two weeks thereafter and in accordance with the law. The District Magistrate shall pass fresh order on or before 06/10/2025. The fresh order shall supersede the earlier order dated 30/07/2025. The petitioner would have liberty to challenge the fresh order, in case the same is adverse to the petitioner.

11. In view of the above order of this Court, the District Magistrate issued show cause notice to the petitioner, who filed his para-wise reply to the show cause notice regarding irregularities as pointed out in the show cause notice vide reply dated 29/09/2025. A copy thereof has been filed as annexure to Supplementary Affidavit.

12. Learned District Magistrate by impugned order dated 06/10/2025, has taken up each and every points raised against the petitioner and dealt with the same, along with his reply, in light of the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the District 7 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 Development Officer, Hardoi. A large number of irregularities were found to have been committed by the Gram Pradhan in the Financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24, which are discussed in the impugned order of the District Magistrate, Hardoi, which is under challenge before this court.

13. As many as 17 points have been taken and dealt with in the impugned order. The learned District Magistrate found that in Gram Panchayat, several works, like interlocking, construction of U type drainage were done after compromising quality and against standards set up for undertakings those works in violation of relevant government orders and financial rules. Each and every financial administrative irregularities detected in work done in the gram panchayat by the Gram Pradhan are pointed out in the impugned order.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in S.N. Mukherjee versus Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1984, wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with two charges framed on the General Court Martial against the accused held that "in view of the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern the exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the 8 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 administrative authority.

15. In another judgment in Sub-Divisional Officer, Sardar, Faizabad versus Shambhoo Narain Singh, reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 140, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under Section 95(1)(g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, while conducting an inquiry into charges leveled against an officer of the Gaon Sabha pending his suspension of the Gram Pradhan of Gaon Sabha was without jurisdiction. The Pradhan cannot be considered as a servant of the Government. He is an elected Representative.

16. In the aforesaid judgments rest on original provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. However, Section 95(1) was amended and sub-section (gg) was inserted by UP Act No.3 of 1973, giving powers to suspend during the pendency of removal proceedings. A proviso was also inserted at the end of Section 95(1). It provides for reasonable opportunity before taking proceeding, apart from others, under Section 95(1)(g) was subsequently Section 95(1) was again amended by UP Act No.9 of 1994 to bring it in conformity with the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act.

17. By the aforesaid amendment, Section 95(1)(gg), provides for the suspension of the Gram Pradhan by deleted. However, a proviso to Section 95(1)(g) was inserted. It provides seizing of the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan during removal proceedings, on fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. This provision is referred to as the proviso 9 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 to Section 95(1)(g). This proviso to Section 95(1)(g) contemplates an inquiry before seizing financial and administrative powers by such person and procedure, as may be prescribed. The state government has framed the inquiry rules in pursuance of the same. The powers under Section 95(1)(g) as well as under the inquiry rules, UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and members), Inquiry Rules, 1997 has been delegated by the state government to the District Magistrate by notification dated 30/04/1997.

18. This Court, in Vivekanand Yadav versus State of UP and another, reported in 2011 (1) A.L.J 694, by Division Bench Judgement observed as under: "75.Section 95(1)(g) or proviso to section 95(1) empowering removal of a pradhan do not contemplate any preliminary or formal enquiry before removing a pradhan. They only envisage reasonable opportunity to be given before removal. The preliminary enquiry is mandated by the proviso to section 95(1)(g) that stipulates cessation of financial and administrative powers during pendency of the removal proceeding. The Enquiry Rules have been framed in pursuance of the same.

76.Section 95(1) (g) or any of the provisos do not contemplate formal final enquiry for removal but in the Enquiry Rules, a detailed procedure (rule 6) for the final enquiry has been framed. To us, it appears 10 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 that these rules were meant to apply in those cases where it was considered expedient to cease the financial and administrative power. However, as there can be proceeding for removal of a pradhan without ceasing his power, does it mean that procedure of rule 6 does not apply to a removal proceeding if it is undertaken without ceasing power?

77.In our opinion, this cannot be done, as this will amount to discrimination.

78. The proceeding for removal has to be conducted in accordance with rule 6 onwards of the Enquiry Rules, irrespective of the fact whether right to exercise financial and administrative power was ceased or not. However, where right to exercise financial and administrative power is also to be ceased then procedure in rules 3 to 5 has to be followed otherwise there is no necessity to follow them.

79.In other words, preliminary enquiry may not be necessary if the proceeding for removal is to be undertaken without ceasing the power of pradhan. With this in background, lets consider the meaning of the word otherwise in rule 5."

19. In view of the above discussions and judgment of this 11 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned District Magistrate has passed the impugned order after due observance of the principle of natural justice and after considering the para-wise reply given by the petitioner against the issues of financial and administrative irregularities and lapses attributed to him in the notice issued to him on the basis of the inquiry report. The reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, and by impugned order, his financial and administrative powers are seized, pending final inquiry.

20. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by District Magistrate, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

21. The petition is dismissed, in above observations. November 18, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Ganj, Jalalabad, Vikas Kand Malwan, Bilgram, District Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi, U.P. in the bye election held in 2022. In the meeting of the Zila Panchayat Board, Shri Ravi Kanaujiya, Member Zila Panchayat moved a complaint against the petitioner, alleging that he was conducting work of Gram Panchayat from some other place instead of the office earmarked, which is against Government Order. The District Magistrate directed District Development Officer vide order dated 25/01/2025 inquire and report. The District Development Officer filed his inquiry report on 19/02/2025, in which the petitioner was found guilty. The petitioner and Shri Ram Kishor, then Secretary of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, were 3 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 issued notice to file a reply within 15 days. The primarily inquiry was conducted in cursory manner, wherein the petitioner has been found guilty, and the District Magistrate, by order dated 06/10/2025, finding him guilty in the preliminary inquiry of misuse of financial and administrative powers and ordered that his financial and administrative powers are seized and directed that his powers shall be exercised by a Committee constituted by the government comprising three members of the Gram Panchayat, which led to filing of present writ petition.

5. He also stated in the impugned order that a final inquiry will be conducted against the Gram Pradhan in respect of said charges. The financial and administrative powers of the petitioner are seized under Section 95 (1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1956. He next submitted that the custodian of official records is not the Gram Pradhan but the Panchayat Secretary, and he has stated in his reply that he was not given the charge of records by his predecessor when he was posted in the said Gram Panchayat. Therefore, in absence of relevant documents, the preliminary inquiry conducted against the petitioner is farce, and the some interim order may kindly be passed to restore the financial and executive powers of the Gram Pradhan during pendency of the final inquiry.

6. Learned State Counsel has raised strong objections towards the contention made by the counsel of the petitioner and he submitted that the District Magistrate has found him guilty of a number of financial irregularities and embezzlement of money 4 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 allotted to the Gram Panchayat and the findings him of guilty in primary inquiry, he has seized his financial and executive powers by the impugned order. The order of the District Magistrate, which is impugned in the present petition, is elaborate and self-contained. He has also filed his instructions received from the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hardoi, and produced the same for perusal of the Court. He also submitted that financial powers are exercised by the Gram Pradhan and the Panchayat Secretary jointly, and the District Magistrate has found both of them guilty of financial irregularities.

7. Learned counsel of the petitioner also submitted that the charges the District Magistrate, Hardoi, himself admitted in his letter addressed to the concerned officer, dated 02/03/2023, that in Panchayat Bhawan of said Village - Ganj Jalalabad, a Police Outpost, and the Office of the Assistant Consolidation Officer are being operated. Due to which it is not possible to carry out the proceedings of the Gram Sachiwalaya of the said village in a smooth manner. Even, the petitioner has himself raised this issue before the District Land Officer as well as Principal Secretary, Home/Intelligence by his letter dated 21/03/2023. For want of relevant records, the petitioner could not reply to the allegations leveled against him by the complainant, Kuldeep Singh. Panchayat Secretary wrote a letter to BDU, Malawan, Hardoi on 26.08.2025 requesting him to direct the previous Panchayat Secretary to hold over the files other than those received by him in-charge.

8. From perusal of record it appears that the District Magistrate 5 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 exercising its power invoking the provisions of section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 r.w. notification no.33-1- 97-123/97 dated 30.04.1997 passed an order seizing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner vide its order dated 30.07.2025 with immediate effect finding the matter to be enquired in the final enquiry to be constituted comprising (i). Deputy Director Agriculture, Hardoi, (ii). Executive Engineer, P.W.D, Construction Division-II, Bilgram, Hardoi and further ordered to constitute a three members committee to function and perform the works and duties of village Pradhan, however, despite three meetings have been convened which were foiled at the behest of the complainant through local MLA and no committee could be formed as the complainant failed to win over the members to get a person appointed of his choice and as such it is yet to be constituted and as such the village is functioning without its duly elected Pradhan for the last three months.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner assailed the above order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Opp. Party No.2 by filing a writ petition bearing Writ C No. 8043 of 2025, titled "Abhishek Dixit vs. State of U.P. and Others" before this Hon'ble Court which was allowed directing the competent authority to pass a fresh order after complying the principles of natural justice vide order dated 11.09.2025 which is already annexed as Annexure No. P-2 to this writ petition. 6 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025

10. In the aforesaid order, this Court observed that the entire case is based upon non-grant of a pre-decisional hearing to the petitioner. It is clear that the show cause notice was given and the petitioner ought to have filed a reply, but without adjudicating the matter, the respondents are directed to grant a post decisional hearing. The petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice, positively on or before 20/09/2025. On receipt of the reply, the District Magistrate shall thereafter pass fresh order, taking into consideration the preliminary inquiry report and the objections/reply filed by the petitioner, within two weeks thereafter and in accordance with the law. The District Magistrate shall pass fresh order on or before 06/10/2025. The fresh order shall supersede the earlier order dated 30/07/2025. The petitioner would have liberty to challenge the fresh order, in case the same is adverse to the petitioner.

11. In view of the above order of this Court, the District Magistrate issued show cause notice to the petitioner, who filed his para-wise reply to the show cause notice regarding irregularities as pointed out in the show cause notice vide reply dated 29/09/2025. A copy thereof has been filed as annexure to Supplementary Affidavit.

12. Learned District Magistrate by impugned order dated 06/10/2025, has taken up each and every points raised against the petitioner and dealt with the same, along with his reply, in light of the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the District 7 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 Development Officer, Hardoi. A large number of irregularities were found to have been committed by the Gram Pradhan in the Financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24, which are discussed in the impugned order of the District Magistrate, Hardoi, which is under challenge before this court.

13. As many as 17 points have been taken and dealt with in the impugned order. The learned District Magistrate found that in Gram Panchayat, several works, like interlocking, construction of U type drainage were done after compromising quality and against standards set up for undertakings those works in violation of relevant government orders and financial rules. Each and every financial administrative irregularities detected in work done in the gram panchayat by the Gram Pradhan are pointed out in the impugned order.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in S.N. Mukherjee versus Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1984, wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with two charges framed on the General Court Martial against the accused held that "in view of the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern the exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the 8 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 administrative authority.

15. In another judgment in Sub-Divisional Officer, Sardar, Faizabad versus Shambhoo Narain Singh, reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 140, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under Section 95(1)(g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, while conducting an inquiry into charges leveled against an officer of the Gaon Sabha pending his suspension of the Gram Pradhan of Gaon Sabha was without jurisdiction. The Pradhan cannot be considered as a servant of the Government. He is an elected Representative.

16. In the aforesaid judgments rest on original provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. However, Section 95(1) was amended and sub-section (gg) was inserted by UP Act No.3 of 1973, giving powers to suspend during the pendency of removal proceedings. A proviso was also inserted at the end of Section 95(1). It provides for reasonable opportunity before taking proceeding, apart from others, under Section 95(1)(g) was subsequently Section 95(1) was again amended by UP Act No.9 of 1994 to bring it in conformity with the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act.

17. By the aforesaid amendment, Section 95(1)(gg), provides for the suspension of the Gram Pradhan by deleted. However, a proviso to Section 95(1)(g) was inserted. It provides seizing of the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan during removal proceedings, on fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. This provision is referred to as the proviso 9 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 to Section 95(1)(g). This proviso to Section 95(1)(g) contemplates an inquiry before seizing financial and administrative powers by such person and procedure, as may be prescribed. The state government has framed the inquiry rules in pursuance of the same. The powers under Section 95(1)(g) as well as under the inquiry rules, UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and members), Inquiry Rules, 1997 has been delegated by the state government to the District Magistrate by notification dated 30/04/1997.

18. This Court, in Vivekanand Yadav versus State of UP and another, reported in 2011 (1) A.L.J 694, by Division Bench Judgement observed as under: "75.Section 95(1)(g) or proviso to section 95(1) empowering removal of a pradhan do not contemplate any preliminary or formal enquiry before removing a pradhan. They only envisage reasonable opportunity to be given before removal. The preliminary enquiry is mandated by the proviso to section 95(1)(g) that stipulates cessation of financial and administrative powers during pendency of the removal proceeding. The Enquiry Rules have been framed in pursuance of the same.

76.Section 95(1) (g) or any of the provisos do not contemplate formal final enquiry for removal but in the Enquiry Rules, a detailed procedure (rule 6) for the final enquiry has been framed. To us, it appears 10 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 that these rules were meant to apply in those cases where it was considered expedient to cease the financial and administrative power. However, as there can be proceeding for removal of a pradhan without ceasing his power, does it mean that procedure of rule 6 does not apply to a removal proceeding if it is undertaken without ceasing power?

77.In our opinion, this cannot be done, as this will amount to discrimination.

78. The proceeding for removal has to be conducted in accordance with rule 6 onwards of the Enquiry Rules, irrespective of the fact whether right to exercise financial and administrative power was ceased or not. However, where right to exercise financial and administrative power is also to be ceased then procedure in rules 3 to 5 has to be followed otherwise there is no necessity to follow them.

79.In other words, preliminary enquiry may not be necessary if the proceeding for removal is to be undertaken without ceasing the power of pradhan. With this in background, lets consider the meaning of the word otherwise in rule 5."

19. In view of the above discussions and judgment of this 11 WRIC No. 10961 of 2025 court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned District Magistrate has passed the impugned order after due observance of the principle of natural justice and after considering the para-wise reply given by the petitioner against the issues of financial and administrative irregularities and lapses attributed to him in the notice issued to him on the basis of the inquiry report. The reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, and by impugned order, his financial and administrative powers are seized, pending final inquiry.

20. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by District Magistrate, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

21. The petition is dismissed, in above observations. November 18, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench