The Allahabad High Court while dismissing a petition said that there is a distinction between error and misappropriation and that every error cannot be a ground of proceeding against the Gram Pradhan specifically when such error does not result in any loss of property.
A Single Bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Umesh Singh.
The petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 passed by respondent no 2.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no 2 to re-conclude the proceedings against the respondent no 4 according to the provision of Section 95(1) (g) of UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.”
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the member of Gram Panchayat and was a complainant and had made a complaint against the Gram Pradhan, who is respondent no 4 in the petition. The enquiry was initiated against the Gram Pradhan and after submission of the final enquiry report, the District Magistrate has directed for recovery of the amount of Rs 21,950/- which has been deposited by the Gram Pradhan.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the District Magistrate instead of proceeding under Section 95 (1) (g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act for removal of Pradhan has let off the Gram Pradhan by giving him warning.
On a query being made to counsel for the petitioner as to what was the allegation against the Gram Pradhan in which enquiry proceedings have been initiated, counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the enquiry report, it has been found that the purchase was made for an amount of Rs 21,950/- under the head of inventory register although one table and chair was also purchased which was not described in the bill submitted by the firm in question.
Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that chair and table were part of the property of the Gram Panchayat and only the inventories were not properly described in the bill and on the aforesaid basis the Gram Pradhan has already deposited the amount as per the order of the District Magistrate.
According to counsel for the petitioner Section 95(1)(g) (iii) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act would come into play in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that once the District Magistrate has found that there is a financial irregularity to the tune of Rs 21,950/- then it was imperative on the part of the District Magistrate to have proceeded for removal of the Gram Pradhan and there is no other option available to the District Magistrate.
On a further query being made to counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate from the record and from the facts of the case as to how the Gram Pradhan has abused his position 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, counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the best the case would come under the clause that the Gram Pradhan continuance in the office is not desirable in public interest and on the strength of the aforesaid provision, counsel for the petitioner submitted that removal of Gram Pradhan was desirable.
The Standing Counsel for the State submitted that in the enquiry against the Gram Pradhan it was found that in the bill purchase of one chair and one table was found to be missing although the same was part of the inventory of the Gram Pradhan.
The Standing Counsel for the State further submitted that on the strength of the aforesaid fact, the District Magistrate has recovered the amount of Rs 21,950/-, however, proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act was not found required.
The Standing Counsel for the State also submitted that there was no error in the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate.
The Court said that it is to be seen that Gram Pradhan is an elected member of the Gram Panchayat and his removal from the office of the Gram Panchayat required under Section 95(1)(g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act then it is necessary that unless there is material to indicate removal, otherwise the same cannot be accepted against the elected representative as the same itself hits the basic tenets of democracy.
The Court observed that,
In the case Gram Pradhan is alleged to have purchased under the inventory register one chair and one table which was not stated in the bill although the bill amount included the aforesaid purchase. The chair and table are part of the Gram Panchayat inventory that has not been disputed by counsel for the parties. The bill may have not clearly stated the inventory purchase and that might have been an irregularity that is not required to be proceeded under Section 95(1)(g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act.
It is the discretion of the District Magistrate, as under Section 95(1) of UP Panchayat Raj Act word “may” has been used instead of “shall”. It gives a discretion to the District Magistrate to proceed. However, when the District Magistrate has been shown that there exist circumstances for removal, then the power is required to be exercised imperatively.
In this case there is an irregularity in the bill, however, purchase of chair and table are part of the inventory of the Gram Panchayat, the same may be an error, however, the same by itself cannot be stated that the Gram Pradhan be discontinued from the office in public interest. The public interest is something more larger than mere error in the accounting process.
“There is no allegation against the Gram Pradhan in the petition with regard to any misappropriation. There is a distinction between error and misappropriation and every error cannot be a ground of proceeding against the Gram Pradhan specifically when such error does not result in any loss of property. In the case purchase and payment have been made and the chair and table being found in inventory is admitted by both the parties. Once aforesaid is a position, the impugned order passed by District Magistrate does not warrant any interference,” the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.