UP Panchayat Raj Act | Not Every Error In Gram Panchayat Inventory Purchase Bill Justifies Removal Of Pradhan: Allahabad HC
Sparsh Upadhyay
15 Nov 2024 8:41 AM IST
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that every error in a Gram Panchayat's inventory purchase bill cannot be grounds for proceeding against the Gram Pradhan under the UP Panchayat Raj Act 1947, specifically when such an error does not result in any property loss.
“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 U.P. 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,” a bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed.
It may be noted that under Section 95(1)(g) of the 1947 Act, a District Magistrate can cease a Pradhan's financial and administrative powers or even oust him/her on the grounds specified therein.
The court was dealing with a writ petition moved by a member of Gram Panchayat challenging an order of the DM not proceeding against the Gram Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g) of the 1947 Act on a complaint filed by the petitioner as the Pradhan had allegedly committed financial irregularities.
It may be noted that the complaint was made to the DM that Gram Pradhan (respondent no. 4) made a purchase for the Gram Panchayat under the inventory register, which included a chair and a table. However, the bill submitted by the supplier firm did not clearly describe both items, but the amount was added to the bill.
In his inquiry, the District Magistrate ordered the recovery of Rs. 21,950 from the Gram Pradhan but did not find it necessary to remove him from office.
It was the case of the petitioner that Gram Pradhan's continuance in the office was not desirable in public interest as he had committed a financial irregularity to the tune of Rs. 21,950/-
On the other hand, the Standing Counsel defended the DM's order on the grounds that in the enquiry, it was found that one chair and one table were missing from the bill purchase, although the same was part of the Gram Panchayat's inventory, the DM recovered the amount from Pradhan, and it wasn't found appropriate to proceed against him under the 1947 Act.
Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court, in its order, noted that the bill may not have clearly stated the inventory purchase, and that might have been an irregularity, but the same was not required to proceed under Section 95(1)(g) of the 1947 Act.
“In the present 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 discontinue from the office in public interest,” the Court observed.
The Court further observed that Section 95(1)(g) of the 1947 Act provides discretionary powers to the District Magistrate to remove the Gram Pradhan, using the word "may" instead of "shall." This implies that the District Magistrate has the option to act based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Against this backdrop, noting that the present writ petition does not allege any misappropriation against Gram Pradhan, the Court dismissed the writ plea while upholding the DM's order.
Case title - Umesh Singh vs. State Of Up And 3 Others
Case citation:
