Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 11 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14926
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1959 of 2025
Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj, Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
2. Perused the instructions, which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned Standing Counsel. The instructions are taken on record. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is also taken on record.
3. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 28.01.2025, whereby the financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized by the District Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is an elected Pradhan. It is stated that some complaints were made against the petitioner on 18.04.2023, on which, a show cause notice was issued on 21.11.2023 calling for a reply from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the reply could not be submitted due to unavoidable circumstances. In the meantime, on 19.12.2023, another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply on 21.02.2024 denying all the charges as levelled in the show cause notice. It is stated that an order came to be passed in exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act on 10.07.2024, whereby, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner was seized. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ-C No.9517 of 2024 which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024. In terms of the said order, the matter was remanded for a decision afresh in accordance with law. While passing the order, this Court had noticed that no reasonings were recorded. In terms of the said remand order, the order impugned came to be passed. The order impugned records as many as 10 charges against the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Preliminary Enquiry Officer, the defence taken by the petitioner as well as the conclusion drawn on the basis of the material as submitted before the District Magistrate.
5. With regard to the first charges, the petitioner was charged by holding that for the works done through the various labourers, the money was drawn in the personal bank account of the petitioner, for which, an order was passed against the petitioner adjudicating an amount to be paid. The petitioner did not file reply as has been recorded in the order. The conclusion drawn in respect of the said charge were that on account of the order being passed, the charge stood proved.
6. With regard to the charge no.2, the show cause notice alleged that in the letterhead of one M/s Shivam Enterprises, the mobile number of the Pradhan was detected whereas no shop was in existence. It was stated that certain money was made to the said firm for installation of the gate. The petitioner denied the said charges. The conclusion drawn on the basis of the submissions were that the gates were installed after substantial delay of making the payment, which demonstrated the lackadaisical manner of working by the petitioner.
7. The third charges was concluded by holding that the manner of getting the interlocking tiles lay, was irregular. With regard to the charge no.4, it was observed that the interlocking work was not done as per the Rules and Regulations prescribing the manner of laying interlocking tiles. With regard to the charge no.5, it was held that the defence taken by the petitioner was not clear and for the charge no.6 also, the defence taken by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Insofar as the charge no.7 is concerned, the defence of the petitioner was analyzed and it was recorded that there were discrepancies in the accompanied vouchers. With regard to the charge no.8, it was stated that the payment of an amount of Rs.4.80/- lac, appears to be suspicious.
8. With regard to charge no.9, it was stated that although the amounts were drawn in the year 2019 with regard to the constructions of a Chabutara and rebore, however, the Chabutara was not existed. With regard to charge no.10, it was stated that in terms of the statement of the daughter-in-law of one Sri Sundar Vishwakarma and the statement of Chhotu Mishra, personal submersible pumps were installed for which amounts were drawn.
9. In the background of the said charges, the defence of the petitioner was that the allegations are baseless. It was also taken as a defence that the said work alleged to be done was never done under the Pradhanship of the petitioner. It was also stated that the amounts were paid as per the ID number mentioned in the reply, however, there were typographical error in recording of the same. It was also stated that the amount with regard to reboring work was made, after the sanction was received.
10. In respect of charge no.1, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that it was never the part of the show cause notice and as such, the petitioner did not submit a reply to the same. In that regard instructions were called. The instructions dated 06.03.2025 of the learned Standing Counsel, records that earlier an order was passed imposing penalty as was done against various Pradhans, however, the said order was merely recorded in the impugned order and no charge has been levelled in respect of the said allegation no.1.
11. In view thereof, what transpires is that there are nine charges levelled against the petitioner, to which, the petitioner had replied and the findings have been recorded. None of the findings recorded above, alleged that the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan had failed to perform his duties as prescribed under Rule 47 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. No finding with regard to the acts alleged against the petitioner were a willful abuse or an intentional wrong. The reliance is placed by the petitioner in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Paras Jain Versus State of U.P. and others; AIR 2016 ALLAHABAD 59 and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs The Collector, District Raigad & Ors; AIR 2012 SC 1339.
12. It is argued that the entire order does not record that the allegations against the petitioner amounted to a willful abuse or an intentional wrong of the powers vested under the Pradhan by virtue of the statute prescriptions. Extensive reliance is also placed on the recordings by this Court in the judgment dated 18.02.2025 in Writ-C No.905 of 2025 (Brij Mohan vs State of U.P. and others).
13. Although in terms of the judgment passed by this Court and in terms of the descriptions contained under the Act, the District Magistrate is well within the powers to pass an order seizing the financial and administrative powers vested in the Gram Pradhan by virtue of proviso to Section 95(1)(g), however, the said powers and misuse thereof should prima facie indicate the willful abuse or intentional wrong, the order impugned and the conclusion drawn, does not prima facie record such willful abuse.
14. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that passing of a serious order under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act without there being any substantial material or without any willful abuse or intentional wrong and also finding that the charges levelled were same, pertaining to the year 2019, the order impugned requires interference.
15. In view thereof, the order impugned dated 28.01.2025 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
16. However, the State Government would be at liberty to conclude the final inquiry in accordance with law.
17. The net effect of this order is that the financial and administrative power of the petitioner shall stand restored.
Order Date :- 11.3.2025
akverma
