Vijay Babu Bajpai vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati

1. Heard Sri Paavan Awasthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Khare, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. the District Magistrate, Hardoi seizing

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 06.11.2025, financial and passed by administrative powers of the petitioner as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Sawayajpur, Development Block Bharkhani, District Hardoi. The order constituted an enquiry committee consisting of two members namely (i) District Development Officer, Hardoi, and (ii) Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department Hardoi to conduct a final enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner and submit his report within 30 days.

3. The learned Standing Counsel has received detailed instructions and he has submitted that he will advance submissions in opposition to the writ petition on the basis of written instructions received by him and as this court does not propose to go into the correctness of the allegations no counter is required the in case.

4. The instructions provided by the learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.

5. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Sawayajpur, the year 2021. On Development Block Bharkhani, District Hardoi 23.01.2023 a complaint was filed against the petitioner and the District Magistrate has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Industries, Hardoi and the Assistant Engineer Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojna to conduct a preliminary enquiry. In furtherance of the said direction a preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 27.03.2023 and on 01.06.2023 the District Magistrate passed an order seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing Writ-C No.5116 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2024 with a direction to pass a final order in the matter with all expedition. In spite of the direction passed by this court on 12.09.2024, when no final decision was taken in the 2 WRIC No. 11168 of 2025 matter, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.9871 of 2024. At the time of hearing of said writ petition the learned Standing counsel made a statement that a fresh order had been passed on 27.11.2024 and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of on 28.11.2024.

7. The petitioner filed Writ-C No.10502 of 2024 challenging the validity of an order dated 27.11.2024 mainly on the ground that no charge sheet was given to the petitioner and no evidence or other information was given to him by the enquiry officer, in contravention of Rule 6 of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. On the basis of instructions received by learned Standing Counsel he had submitted that the petitioner had been given telephonic information by Panchayat Secretary. This court was of the opinion that the telephonic information was not valid information and the order dated 27.11.2024 had been passed in violation of Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997 as well as the principles of natural justice and accordingly quashed the order dated 27.11.2024.

8. This court had remanded the matter for a fresh decision strictly in accordance with law and after complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997. The court further ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to continue as Gram Pradhan and complete the term unless any fresh order is passed in terms of liberty given for holding final enquiry.

9. After the aforesaid remand made by the order dated 18.12.2024, the District Magistrate ordered a fresh preliminary enquiry and on the basis of its report the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were again seized by the impugned order dated 06.11.2025.

10. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a preliminary enquiry on the same set of allegations had already been held against the petitioner and acting on the preliminary enquiry report the petitioner's financial and administrative powers had been seized. The order of seizing financial and administrative powers was quashed by this court by means of a judgment dated 18.12.20254, passed in Writ-C No.10502 of 2024 and the limited liberty granted to the opposite parties was to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997 and the court had provided that the petitioner would be entitled to continue as Gram Pradhan and complete the term unless any fresh order is passed in terms of the liberty given for holding a final enquiry.

11. From a bare perusal of the order dated 18.12.2024, passed by this court it is clear that the only liberty granted to the opposite parties was to hold a final enquiry in terms of Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997, in accordance with law.

12. The learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition on the basis of written instructions provided to him and he has submitted that the seizure of financial and administrative powers is essential for holding final enquiry. He has relied upon the provisions contained in Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides that "where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan or Up- Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the 3 WRIC No. 11168 of 2025 final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a Committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government."

13. Sri Khare, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that it is in accordance with the aforesaid statutory mandate that financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been seized on the basis of preliminary enquiry report submitted against him.

14. Sri Khare, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that permitting the petitioner to exercise financial and administrative powers would adversely affect the outcome of final enquiry and for holding independent and effective final enquiry it is necessary that the financial and administrative powers of petitioner be seized pending the enquiry.

15. In the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another: 2010 SCC OnLine All 2702, inter alia following questions had been framed by a Full Bench of this Court for determination: "(i) Can there be proceeding for removal of a pradhan under section 95(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act, without ceasing his financial and administrative powers, (ii) in case answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative then, will rule 6 of the Enquiry Rules providing the procedure in the final enquiry apply to the case where power is not so ceased."

16. The answer to the aforesaid questions has been given in para 75 of the judgment in the following words: "In our opinion there can be a proceeding for removal of a pradhan without ceasing his financial and administrative powers.

77. ... 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?

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

80. In other words, preliminary enquiry may not be necessary if the proceeding for removal is to be undertaken without ceasing the power of the pradhan."

17. Therefore, the Full Bench has categorically laid down in no uncertain terms that proceedings for removal of Pradhan can be undertaken without seizing the financial and administrative powers. The coordinate Bench has given the liberty to the opposite parties to pass a fresh order after holding an enquiry in terms of Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997 which provides for a final enquiry. No liberty was granted to the opposite parties to again hold a fresh preliminary enquiry. The aforesaid order passed by the Coordinate Bench was within the scope of law as explained by the Full Bench in the case of Vivekanand Yadav (Supra). This order has not been challenged by any party and it has attained finality and is binding on the parties.

18. In these circumstances, it is not open for the opposite parties to again institute a preliminary enquiry and to seize the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner pending final enquiry.

19. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner is unsustainable in law. The writ petition 4 WRIC No. 11168 of 2025 is allowed accordingly. The order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, copy where of has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The liberty granted to the opposite parties by the order dated 18.11.2024, passed in Writ-C No.10502 of 2024 would still be available to them. November 28, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Paavan Awasthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Khare, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. the District Magistrate, Hardoi seizing

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 06.11.2025, financial and passed by administrative powers of the petitioner as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Sawayajpur, Development Block Bharkhani, District Hardoi. The order constituted an enquiry committee consisting of two members namely (i) District Development Officer, Hardoi, and (ii) Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department Hardoi to conduct a final enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner and submit his report within 30 days.

3. The learned Standing Counsel has received detailed instructions and he has submitted that he will advance submissions in opposition to the writ petition on the basis of written instructions received by him and as this court does not propose to go into the correctness of the allegations no counter is required the in case.

4. The instructions provided by the learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.

5. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Sawayajpur, the year 2021. On Development Block Bharkhani, District Hardoi 23.01.2023 a complaint was filed against the petitioner and the District Magistrate has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Industries, Hardoi and the Assistant Engineer Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojna to conduct a preliminary enquiry. In furtherance of the said direction a preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 27.03.2023 and on 01.06.2023 the District Magistrate passed an order seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing Writ-C No.5116 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2024 with a direction to pass a final order in the matter with all expedition. In spite of the direction passed by this court on 12.09.2024, when no final decision was taken in the 2 WRIC No. 11168 of 2025 matter, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.9871 of 2024. At the time of hearing of said writ petition the learned Standing counsel made a statement that a fresh order had been passed on 27.11.2024 and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of on 28.11.2024.

7. The petitioner filed Writ-C No.10502 of 2024 challenging the validity of an order dated 27.11.2024 mainly on the ground that no charge sheet was given to the petitioner and no evidence or other information was given to him by the enquiry officer, in contravention of Rule 6 of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. On the basis of instructions received by learned Standing Counsel he had submitted that the petitioner had been given telephonic information by Panchayat Secretary. This court was of the opinion that the telephonic information was not valid information and the order dated 27.11.2024 had been passed in violation of Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997 as well as the principles of natural justice and accordingly quashed the order dated 27.11.2024.

8. This court had remanded the matter for a fresh decision strictly in accordance with law and after complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997. The court further ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to continue as Gram Pradhan and complete the term unless any fresh order is passed in terms of liberty given for holding final enquiry.

9. After the aforesaid remand made by the order dated 18.12.2024, the District Magistrate ordered a fresh preliminary enquiry and on the basis of its report the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were again seized by the impugned order dated 06.11.2025.

10. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a preliminary enquiry on the same set of allegations had already been held against the petitioner and acting on the preliminary enquiry report the petitioner's financial and administrative powers had been seized. The order of seizing financial and administrative powers was quashed by this court by means of a judgment dated 18.12.20254, passed in Writ-C No.10502 of 2024 and the limited liberty granted to the opposite parties was to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997 and the court had provided that the petitioner would be entitled to continue as Gram Pradhan and complete the term unless any fresh order is passed in terms of the liberty given for holding a final enquiry.

11. From a bare perusal of the order dated 18.12.2024, passed by this court it is clear that the only liberty granted to the opposite parties was to hold a final enquiry in terms of Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997, in accordance with law.

12. The learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition on the basis of written instructions provided to him and he has submitted that the seizure of financial and administrative powers is essential for holding final enquiry. He has relied upon the provisions contained in Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides that "where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan or Up- Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the 3 WRIC No. 11168 of 2025 final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a Committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government."

13. Sri Khare, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that it is in accordance with the aforesaid statutory mandate that financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been seized on the basis of preliminary enquiry report submitted against him.

14. Sri Khare, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that permitting the petitioner to exercise financial and administrative powers would adversely affect the outcome of final enquiry and for holding independent and effective final enquiry it is necessary that the financial and administrative powers of petitioner be seized pending the enquiry.

15. In the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another: 2010 SCC OnLine All 2702, inter alia following questions had been framed by a Full Bench of this Court for determination: "(i) Can there be proceeding for removal of a pradhan under section 95(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act, without ceasing his financial and administrative powers, (ii) in case answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative then, will rule 6 of the Enquiry Rules providing the procedure in the final enquiry apply to the case where power is not so ceased."

16. The answer to the aforesaid questions has been given in para 75 of the judgment in the following words: "In our opinion there can be a proceeding for removal of a pradhan without ceasing his financial and administrative powers.

77. ... 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?

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

80. In other words, preliminary enquiry may not be necessary if the proceeding for removal is to be undertaken without ceasing the power of the pradhan."

17. Therefore, the Full Bench has categorically laid down in no uncertain terms that proceedings for removal of Pradhan can be undertaken without seizing the financial and administrative powers. The coordinate Bench has given the liberty to the opposite parties to pass a fresh order after holding an enquiry in terms of Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997 which provides for a final enquiry. No liberty was granted to the opposite parties to again hold a fresh preliminary enquiry. The aforesaid order passed by the Coordinate Bench was within the scope of law as explained by the Full Bench in the case of Vivekanand Yadav (Supra). This order has not been challenged by any party and it has attained finality and is binding on the parties.

18. In these circumstances, it is not open for the opposite parties to again institute a preliminary enquiry and to seize the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner pending final enquiry.

19. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner is unsustainable in law. The writ petition 4 WRIC No. 11168 of 2025 is allowed accordingly. The order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, copy where of has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The liberty granted to the opposite parties by the order dated 18.11.2024, passed in Writ-C No.10502 of 2024 would still be available to them. November 28, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench