Allahabad High Court
Smt. Santoshi Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Panchayati ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25002
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3860 of 2025
Petitioner :- Smt. Santoshi Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Panchayati Raj And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Mishra,Pramod Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State who has produced instructions which are taken on record.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 22.03.2025 whereby an order has been passed holding the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan guilty of certain infractions and the powers of the petitioner has been seized in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act read with Rule 4 of applicable rules.
By the said order, a further amount of Rs.64,71,097/- has been assessed against the petitioner as a liability.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of a complaint made earlier by the same complainant, an inquiry was conducted and a view was formed that the inquiry appears to be baseless. The said inquiry was conducted by a team comprising of four persons and is on record as Annexure - 3. Subsequently, the same complainant once again made a complaint based upon which a fresh inquiry was called and on the basis of a preliminary inquiry, a show-cause notice dated 07.01.2025 was served to the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegation as levelled in the show-cause notice and filed a reply. After the reply was submitted, an order dated 22.03.2025 came to be passed.
4. In the order which is impugned and is contained in Annexure - 1, column wise details were mentioned: firstly with regard to the complaint made, second with regard to the inquiry report and third with regard to the reply given by the petitioner. In respect of all the charges, the petitioner had given whatever evidence was available including the photographs etc. For the balance, it was stated that the documents were kept by Secretary and were not available.
5. The District Magistrate by means of the impugned order after recording the submissions by the petitioner proceeded to hold that as the documents had not been submitted by the Secretary, the Gram Pradhan appears to be responsible for the allegations. There is no consideration of the defence including whatever evidences were available with the petitioner and produced. The said manner of decision making cannot be termed as a reasonable order which is required to be passed in compliance of the judgment in the case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; 2010 SCC OnLine All 2702.
6. In the entire order, there is no allegation or prima-facie finding that the petitioner was guilty of any of the duties as are prescribed in terms of Rule 47 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules wherein duties of the Pradhan is prescribed.
7. Thus, finding the order dated 22.03.2025 to be short of the requirements which are essential for exercising powers under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the same cannot be sustained and is quashed.
8. However, the final inquiry, if pending, shall be concluded in accordance with law.
9. It is clarified that the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner shall be restored.
10. Present petition stands allowed in above terms.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025
nishant
