UP Panchayat Raj Rules 1997 | DM Can't Remove A Pradhan Solely Based On A Spot Inspection Sans A Formal Inquiry: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam noted that while the District Magistrate has the power to either cease the financial and administrative powers or oust the democratically elected Gram Pradhan, the power is to be exercised only in exceptional and extraordinary cases.

The Court added that the power to remove a Pradhan 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 UP Panchayat Raj Act 1947 and the 1997 Rules.

It may be noted that under Section 95(1)(g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, a District Magistrate can cease a Pradhan's financial and administrative powers or even oust him/her. However, Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules 1997 contemplate a formal enquiry against a Pradhan before he/she can be formally removed.

The Court made these observations while dealing with a writ plea moved by Sangeeta Devi challenging the July 2024 order of the DM Raibareli removing her from the post of Gram Pradhan [Gram Panchayat- Arakha, Block & Tehsil- Unchahar, Distt.- Raibareli].

The impugned order was passed based on an enquiry report (in the form of a spot inspection report) alleging that the petitioner was misappropriating public money in the development work.

Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel contended that the order impugned had been passed only based on a spot inspection made by the Enquiry Officers and the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was in utter violation of Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1947 as the petitioner was never issued a charge sheet and was not even called upon by the Enquiry Officer to submit her reply to the charge sheet.

Here it may be noted that the 1997 rules, governing inquiries into the alleged misconduct of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, and Members, do not permit their removal based solely on a spot inspection.

Instead, they require the Enquiry Officer to frame specific charges supported by relevant facts, documents, and witness lists. Rule 6(3) mandates that the accused receive a copy of the charges, a statement of imputations, and a list of supporting evidence, with a notice to submit a defence and indicate if they wish to be heard.

Further, Rule 6(4) states that if the charges are not admitted in the defence, the Enquiry Officer must conduct an inquiry and record findings after considering the evidence.

The single judge referred to the impugned order of the DM to note that though the enquiry officers appointed by the district magistrate made a spot inspection, the enquiry was not conducted as per Rules 6 and 7 of the 1997 Rules.

“…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,” the Court noted.

In this regard, the bench referred to the HC's judgments in the cases of Mahendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others 2014, Pushpa vs. State of U.P. and Others 2014, and Mukesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others 2014, wherein it was held that the procedure as provided under Rule 6 of the 1997Rules is required to be followed before a Pradhan could be ousted.

In view of this, the court quashed the DM's order, holding that the final enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rules 6 and 7 of the 1997 Rules.

The Court further directed the DM concerned to initiate a fresh enquiry against the petitioner in consonance with the provisions of 1997 Rules and to conduct an enquiry afresh under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997 after appointing a fresh enquiry officer under Rule 5 of the said Rules.

The Court further directed that the enquiry should be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months, and that the three-member committee appointed by the District Magistrate will continue to discharge its functions during this period.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Abhishek, Durgesh Mishra

Counsel for CSC: AGA Puneet Kumar Yadav, Sumit Kumar Srivastava

Case title - Sangeeta Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Civil Sectt. Lko And 2 Others

Case citation:

Click Here ToRead/Download Order