Smt. Reena Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11689 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Reena Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 October, 2025

Author: Arun Kumar

Bench: Arun Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 

 

 

 
Reserved
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
WRIT - C No. - 26831 of 2025
 

 
Smt. Reena Devi
 

 

 
..Petitioner(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
State of U.P. and 3 others
 

 

 
..Respondent(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
 
:
 
Shivam Shukla, Vinod Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
C.S.C.
 

 

 
Connected with
 
WRIT - C No. - 28957 of 2024
 

 
Smt Reena
 

 

 
..Petitioner(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
State of UP and 2 others
 

 

 
..Respondent(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
 
:
 
Dushyant Singh, M.c. Singh, Shivam Shukla, Vinod Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
C.S.C., Shyam Babu Vaish
 

 

 

 
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Shivam Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and Sri Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the caveator.

2. By the order dated 11.8.2025 passed in Writ-C No.26831 of 2025, the writ petition was directed to be listed along with Writ-C No.28957 of 2024. As both the writ petitions arises out of same proceeding against the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Jalkheda, District Bulandshahar on 8.5.2021. A complaint was filed by one Ajay Kumar Rana son of Late Gulab Singh of Village Jalkheda on 22.3.2023 alleging financial irregularities in development works carried out in the financial year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. On the said complaint, Project Director, District Village Development Agency, Bulandshahar was appointed as an enquiry officer, who submitted his enquiry report on 28.12.2023. In pursuance of the said report, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar issued a show cause notice dated 6.1.2024 to the petitioner. A detailed explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 22.2.2024. The District Magistrate, Bulandshahar passed the order dated 21.8.2024, ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan, in exercise of his powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947, which is the subject matter of challenge in Writ-C No.28957 of 2024, in which counter affidavit was invited from the learned Standing Counsel, vide order dated 23.10.2024 of this Court, leaving it open to the authorities concerned to conclude the enquiry proceedings and the matter remained pending.

4. Writ-C No.26831 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order of the Chief Development Officer, Bulandshahar, the enquiry report dated 21.6.2025 and the show cause notice dated 1.7.2025.

5. The case of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition is that the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar constituted a two member committee comprising of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering and Deputy Commissioner, Bulandshahar by its order dated 21.8.2024 for conducting final enquiry against the petitioner in proceedings initiated under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947. The aforesaid committee submitted its report dated 25.1.2025 to the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, which was considered by him and rejected being conducted in a cursory manner. A new three members enquiry committee was constituted, consisting of District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bulandshahar and Finance & Accounts Officer in the office of Basic Education, Bulandshahar, allegedly by the letter of Chief Development Officer, Bulandshahar dated 13.5.2025. The said committee submitted its report on 21.6.2025 to the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar. Pursuant to the enquiry report dated 21.6.2025 a show cause notice dated 1.7.2025 was issued to the petitioner. She submitted her reply to the respondent no.2, by the representation dated 15.7.2025.

6. When Writ-C No.26831 of 2025 was taken up as a fresh case on 14.8.2025, following orders were passed:-

1. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is per-se illegal and in violation of Rule 2(C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997.

2. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that Enquiry Officer means the District Panchayat Raj Officer or any other District Level Officer nominated by District Magistrate, in so far as present case is concerned, for the purpose of holding a final enquiry against the petitioner three Members Committee was appointed by the Chief Development Officer, which is not permissible in law.

3. Sri Kartikey Saran, learned Additional Advocate General along-with Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is directed to seek instructions in the matter and place the same before this Court on the next date fixed in the matter.

4. Put up as fresh on 27.08.2025.

7. In compliance of the earlier order dated 14.8.2025, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent has placed the instructions before this Court, which are taken on record.

8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the final enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the order of respondent no.2 dated 21.8.2024, passed under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947, is vitiated as the enquiry committee was constituted by the order of the Chief Development Officer, Bulandshahar dated 13.5.2025, which is in the teeth of the mandatory provisions of Rule 2(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. The show cause notice dated 1.7.2025, issued to the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid illegal enquiry report, is bad under the law and is liable to be set aside.

9. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of District Magistrate dated 21.8.2024 was itself bad, as it failed to consider explanation submitted by the petitioner, and that the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Project Director, District Village Development Agency, Bulandshahar and the Junior Engineer in the office of Project Director, District Village Development Officer was vitiated as the second member of the enquiry committee was not a District Level Officer, which is also contrary to Rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court passed in Writ-C No.37427 of 2012 (Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petition No.1784 (M/S) of 2013 (Smt. Shyam Wati Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. & other).

10. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State contended that the notesheet annexed alongwith the instructions submitted today shows that the three member enquiry committee was constituted by the order of the District Magistrate dated 8.5.2025, which was communicated to the members of the Enquiry Committee by letter of the Chief Development Officer, Bulandshahar dated 13.5.2025. All the members of the enquiry committee are District Level Officers, as contemplated under Rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. The final enquiry report has already been submitted and a show cause notice dated 1.7.2025 had been issued to the petitioner, who has already submitted her explanation to it on 15.7.2024, and only final orders have to be passed, therefore, no interference is required by this Court, at this stage. He further submits that argument against the preliminary enquiry is misplaced as there are not pleadings nor any relief challenging it is claimed in either of the writ petitions.

11. I have perused the records of both the writ petitions and the instructions submitted by learned Additional Advocate General.

12. The impugned order dated 21.8.2024 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner had been passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar exercising powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947, which is reproduced as under:-

95. (1). The State Government may-

(g). remove a Pradhan. Up-Pradhan or member of a Gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabhandhak Samiti or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if he-

(i) absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings,

(ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude,

(iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or

(iii-a) has taken the benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section 11-A or sub-section (5) of Section 12, as the case may be, on the basis of a false declaration subscribed by him stating that he is a member of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Classes, as the case may be.

(iv) being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in politics, or

(v) suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5-A :

Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such 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 final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a Committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government.

13. There is a detailed procedure prescribed under Rules 4 and 5 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 regarding making of preliminary enquiry and enquiry officer, which are as follows:-

4. Preliminary Enquiry. - (1) The State Government, on the receipt of a complaint or report referred to in Rule 3, or otherwise order the Enquiry Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out if there is a prima facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter.

(2) The Enquiry Officer shall conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit his report to the State Government within thirty days of his having been so ordered.

5. Enquiry Officer.- Where the State Government is of the opinion, on the basis of the report referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 or otherwise, that an enquiry should be held against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or Member under the proviso to clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95, it shall forthwith constitute a committee envisaged by proviso to clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95, of the Act and by an Order ask an Enquiry Officer, other than the Enquiry Officer nominated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, to hold the enquiry.

14. Rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 defines the Enquiry Officer, which is as follows:-

2.(c) 'Enquiry Officer' means the District Panchayat Raj Office or any other district level officer, to be nominated by the District Magistrate.

15. Under Rule 4 of the Rules, the District Magistrate, on the receipt of a complaint or report referred to in Rule 3, or otherwise, order the Enquiry Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out if there is a prima facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter. Under Rule 5 of the Rules, where the District Magistrate is of the opinion, on the basis of the report referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 or otherwise, that an enquiry should be held against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or Member, he shall forthwith constitute a Three Member Committee and by an order ask an Enquiry Officer, other than the Enquiry Officer nominated earlier, to hold the enquiry.

16. The enquiry officer for conducting the preliminary enquiry should be the District Panchayat Raj Officer or any other District Level Officer to be nominated by the District Magistrate. It is, therefore, to be examined whether the aforesaid provision of the Rules had been followed by the District Magistrate while passing the order under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947.

17. The preliminary enquiry has to be conducted by an enquiry officer contemplated under Rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules, 1997, namely either the District Panchayat Raj Officer or any other District Level Officer to be nominated by the District Magistrate. There is no challenge by the petitioner to the appointment of enquiry officer on the ground that it was not nominated by the District Magistrate. However, he has in the rejoinder affidavit filed by him in Writ-C No.28957 of 2024 claimed that the enquiry committee constituted for the preliminary enquiry consists of Project Director, District Village Development Agency, Bulandshahar and Junior Engineer in the office of Project Director, of which, the Junior Engineer was not a District Level Officer, as contemplated under Rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules, 1997.

18. Contention of the petitioner that preliminary enquiry was conducted by a committee of Project Director and Junior Engineer, who were not District Level Officer is incorrect and misplaced as the enquiry report dated 28.12.2023 filed as Annexure-6 to the Writ-C No.26831 of 2025, shows that it has been signed only by Project Director, District Village Development Agency, who is a District Level Officer, as contemplated under Rules 2(c) and 4 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. The Junior Engineer in the office of Project Director, District Village Development Agency associated with the enquiry appears to be a technical assistant, which is not prohibited under the Rules.

19. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent no.2 did not consider the explanation of the petitioner while passing the order dated 21.8.2024. I find that the respondent no.2 while passing the order dated 21.8.2024, after considering the reply of the petitioner, was prima facie satisfied that the financial irregularities pointed out in the preliminary enquiry required a detailed enquiry which cannot be doubted at this stage, when the final enquiry report has been submitted and the respondent no.2 is ceased with the matter for final decision. The order of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar dated 21.8.2024 does not require interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

20. The challenge of the petitioner to the final enquiry dated 21.6.2025 on the ground that the enquiry committee was not in accordance with the Enquiry Rules, 1997 is misconceived, in view of the instructions submitted by learned Additional Advocate General. The notesheet dated 8.5.2025 annexed with the instructions shows that the members of enquiry committee were nominated by the District Magistrate, who are all District Level Officers, as contemplated under Rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. A perusal of the letter of Chief Development Officer dated 13.5.2025, under challenge, also shows that it is a communication of the approval of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar dated 8.5.2025. It is beyond doubt that the constitution of enquiry committee was strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rules 2(c) and 5 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. The challenge of the petitioner to the letter of Chief Development Officer, respondent no.4, dated 13.5.2025, the enquiry report dated 21.6.2025 and the show cause notice dated 1.7.2025 is devoid of merit and is liable to the rejected.

21. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable in view of the fact that in the case of Smt. Shyam Wati (supra), the enquiry committee was appointed by the Chief Development Officer, Unnao and in the case of Narendra Kumar (supra), the Block Development Officer had constituted the enquiry committee. A little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision i.e. presence or absence of one additional fact may make the precedential value of an otherwise binding precedent doubtful, as held by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bhav Nagar University Vs. Pali Tana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and others, (2003) 2 SCC 111.

22. In view of the aforesaid discussions, both the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

23. However, as the final enquiry report contemplated under Rule 7 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 has already been submitted and the petitioner has filed her explanation to the show cause notice dated 1.7.2025, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, respondent no.2, is directed to take an appropriate decision, by passing final order, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

October 17, 2025

Anil