Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPMS No.726 of 2026
Tayyaba
--Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others
--Respondents
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for petitioner.
2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel with Ms. Swati Verma, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent Nos.1 to 7.
3. Ms. Mudita Shukla, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.9-Caveator, appeared through video conferencing.
4. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 02.12.2025 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/SDM, Laksar, whereby, petitioner was found ineligible for holding the post of Pradhan as well as the appellate order dated 10.03.2026 passed by learned CDO, Haridwar, in Appeal preferred by petitioner, whereby, the order passed by learned Prescribed Authority/SDM, Laksar, was affirmed.
5. Petitioner was elected as a Gram Pradhan, Village Makhyali Khurd, Laksar, Haridwar, in the year 2022. A complaint has been made against petitioner by respondent No.9 alleging financial irregularities and overpayment to the works conducted within Gram Sabha during her tenure as Gram Pradhan.
6. On the said complaint, enquiry has been conducted jointly by District Development Officer and Assistant Engineer, Rural Development Department and a joint enquiry report dated 17.08.2024 was submitted, wherein, petitioner was found guilty of committing financial irregularities. Enquiry report dated 17.08.2024 was affirmed vide new report dated 19.07.2025 made by respondent No.8. These enquiry reports were proceeded and decided by learned Prescribed Authority/SDM, Laksar vide order dated 02.12.2025, by which, petitioner was declared ineligible to continue as Gram Pradhan. The said order dated 02.12.2025 was challenged before learned CDO, Haridwar, in an Appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2026 affirming the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/SDM, Laksar. Thus, petitioner is before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that enquiry report dated 17.08.2024 was held behind the back of petitioner. He further submits that neither the petitioner was heard nor did any show cause notice ever been issued to her. On the basis of enquiry report, proceeding was initiated before the learned Prescribed Authority/ SDM, Laksar.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submitted that though petitioner was not heard in enquiry dated 17.08.2024 but she was issued notice and was heard in the proceedings initiated before the learned Prescribed Authority/ SDM, Laksar.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, this Court is of the view that when enquiry on the basis of complaint was initiated, petitioner was never heard, there is no use of giving her opportunity of hearing during the proceeding. The proceeding before the learned Prescribed Authority/SDM is vitiated.
10. Issue notice to respondent No.8, returnable within six weeks.
11. Steps to be taken within 03 days.
12. Respondents may file counter affidavit(s) within six weeks.
13. Put up on 26.05.2026.
14. In the meantime, effect and operation of impugned order dated 02.12.2025 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/ SDM, Laksar, as well as the appellate order dated 10.03.2026 passed by learned CDO, Haridwar, shall remain stayed.
15. Interim relief application (IA/1/2026) stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 25.03.2026 PN