The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while allowing a petition said that no order can be passed for removal of a Pradhan by the District Magistrate only on the basis of a spot inspection made by the Enquiry Officer without complying with the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of the UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules 1997.
A Single Bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Smt Sangeeta Devi.
The petition has been filed for following relief:-
“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Final Enquiry Report dated 14.03.2024, Show Cause Notice dated 12.04.2024 and the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by opposite Party no 2 i.e District Magistrate Raebareli removing the petitioner from the post of Gram Pradhan pertaining to Gram Panchayat- Arakha, Block & Tehsil- Unchahar, Distt- Raebareli.”
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as a Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Post-Arakha, Block & Tehsil- Unchahar, District- Raebareli. Certain complaints were made by the villagers, namely, Sunil Kumar son of Mewa Lal, Rakesh Kumar son of Late Ram Nath against the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Raebareli alleging therein the misappropriation of public money by the petitioner in carrying out the development work.
The complaint made against the petitioner was got enquired by District Magistrate, Raebareli and preliminary reports dated 21.10.2022 and 29.10.2022 were submitted before the District Magistrate, Raebareli by the District Social Welfare Officer, Raebareli and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raebareli. After considering the preliminary enquiry reports, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Raebareli on 04.11.2022 as to why proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 should not be initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 08.12.2022 to the District Magistrate, Raebareli.
By order dated 12.05.2023, the District Magistrate in exercise of its powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 ceased the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.
By another order dated 16.06.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Raebareli, a three member committee was constituted for discharging functions of the Gram Pradhan and a final enquiry was also directed. District Programme Officer, Raebareli and Executive Engineer Khand 2 Lok Nirman Vibhag were appointed Enquiry Officers for conducting the final enquiry. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Court challenging the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by District Magistrate by which the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were ceased.
The Court by order dated 04.10.2023 directed the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit and the said writ petition is still pending. The aforementioned Enquiry Officers submitted a final enquiry report on 14.03.2024. On the basis of final enquiry report dated 14.03.2024, the District Magistrate, Raebareli issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 12.04.2024 directing the petitioner to submit his explanation within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation/ reply to the enquiry report on 02.05.2024 denying the charges levied against the petitioner relating to financial irregularities and misappropriation of public money.
The petitioner also raised objections regarding the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officers in conducting the final enquiry. Copy of the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.05.2024 has been filed to the writ petition. The District Magistrate, Raebareli on 26.07.2024 passed an order removing the petitioner from the post of PostArakha, Block & Tehsil- Unchahar, District- Raebareli. Hence the writ petition.
Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned removing the petitioner from the post of Pradhan has been passed on the basis of an enquiry report dated 14.03.2024, which is nothing but a spot inspection report. It has also been contended by counsel for the petitioner that State of U.P has framed U.P Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 110 read with Clause (g) of sub-Section (1) of Section 95 of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The procedure for holding final enquiry has been provided in Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1997.
It has been contended that the order impugned has been passed only on the basis of a spot inspection made by the Enquiry Officers and the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was in utter violation to the Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1947.
The Court observed that,
I have perused the enquiry report as well as the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 26.07.2024 and I am of the opinion that though a spot inspection was made by the Enquiry Officers appointed by the District Magistrate but the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1997 as there is no whisper of even issuing charge sheet, calling for an explanation from the petitioner, recording of evidence of witnesses and fixing date and time for enquiry in the impugned order and in the enquiry report.
Democracy in our country begins at the grass root level with elections of Gram Pradhans in villages and the same is the very foundation of our democracy. No doubt, the District Magistrate has the power to either cease the financial and administrative powers or oust the democratically elected Gram Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, but the said power is to be exercised only in exceptional and extraordinary cases, and should be exercised with utmost caution and not in a routine manner at the whims and fancies of the administrative authorities, without following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules.
The case is a glaring example where action has been taken in gross violation of the Act and the Rules of 1997 framed thereunder and a democratically elected Pradhan has been wrongly kept away and deprived of his elected office for several months.
“Rules 6 and Rule 7 of Rules 1997 contemplates a formal enquiry as per the provisions made in the aforesaid rules. No order can be passed for removal of Pradhan by the District Magistrate only on the basis of a spot inspection made by the Enquiry Officer without complying with the provisions of Rule 6 and 7 of the Rules 1997.
Thus, in view of discussions made above and stand of the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that final enquiry conducted against the petitioner is not in consonance with the procedure prescribed in Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1997 and therefore, the enquiry is vitiated. No reliance can be placed on the said enquiry for passing an order of removal by the District Magistrate,” the Court further observed.
Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the District Magistrate and the writ petition is allowed.