Allowed¶25

Smt. Guddi Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2025WRIC/30422/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gram Pradhan; cessation of financial and administrative powers; Section 95(1)(g) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947; Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules 1997; Rules 3, 4 & 5; preliminary enquiry mandatory; Lokpal MNREGA Ombudsman report; Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005; surcharge/recovery; District Magistrate Mau; Village Muskura; show cause notice; writ petition allowed; order set aside; liberty to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 8.8.2025 of the District Magistrate, Mau set aside, with liberty to the District Magistrate to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. ¶25

Smt. Guddi Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 8.8.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Mau under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, initiating proceedings solely on the ombudsman's MNREGA report without the preliminary enquiry mandated by Rules 3, 4 & 5 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997, is sustainable.

¶19

Court's answer

The proceedings against the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act were not initiated in accordance with the Enquiry Rules, 1997; the show cause notice rested only on the ombudsman's MNREGA report without any preliminary enquiry, so the very inception of the action is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rules 3, 4 & 5 of the Rules.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The order of the District Magistrate, Mau (respondent no. 2) dated 8.8.2025 cannot be sustained and is set aside; however, the District Magistrate, Mau is free to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Enquiry Rules, 1997.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition allowed, setting aside the order dated 8.8.2025 of the District Magistrate, Mau, passed under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Village Muskura and directing recovery of Rs. 36119.00 and Rs. 35609.00 against two development works. Proceedings had been initiated solely on the report of the Lokpal MNREGA (Ombudsman under the MNREGA Act) dated 9.1.2025, without the preliminary enquiry mandated by Rules 3, 4 & 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997; such non-compliance vitiates the very inception of the action. The District Magistrate was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law, adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. The Additional Advocate General stated that the recovery/surcharge order had been withdrawn by order dated 17.9.2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 30422 of 2025

Smt. Guddi Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶7

		.....	Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: J.P.N. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sanjeev Singh, Girijesh Kumar Pd Gupta	Vijay Sh Gupta,	anker, C.S.C., Shiv Shankar

¶8

Court No. - 9

¶9

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶10

Heard Sri J.P.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri H.K. Shukla, Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the District Magistrate, Mau, dated 8.8.2025, passed in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, ceasing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Village Muskura.

¶12

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that on a complaint made by one Harihar Yadav on 27.11.2024, showing financial irregularities in the development works under the MNREGA Scheme, an enquiry was conducted by the Lokpal MNREGA, the Ombudsman appointed under the MNREGA Act. The Lokpal submitted its report dated 9.1.2025. A show cause notice dated 9.4.2025 was issued to petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The petitioner submitted his objection before the respondent no. 2 on 30.5.2025.

¶13

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 without considering the explanation of the petitioner has proceeded to cease the financial and administrative power of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan and directed recovery of Rs. 36119.00 and Rs. 35609.00, against two different development works. It is contended by the counsel for the

¶14

WRIC No. 30422 of 2025

¶15

¶16

petitioner that the action of the respondent no. 2 in proceeding under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act in respect of inquiry report under the MNREGA Scheme was illegal. The procedure of enquiry for removal of pradhan, has been provided under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. The mandatory provisions under Rules 3, 4 & 5 of the aforesaid Rules were not complied with before proceeding against the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act.

¶17

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General on instructions states that the order of recovery of surcharge dated 8.8.2025 has been withdrawn by the order dated 17.9.2025. However, he could not dispute the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, that the provisions of Rules 3, 4 & 5 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997, were not complied with before passing the order dated 8.8.2025.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

¶19

It is admitted fact that the proceedings against the petitioner had been initiated under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, and the show cause notice was not preceded by any preliminary enquiry as contemplated under the Enquiry Rules, 1997. The report by the ombudsman under the MNREGA Scheme was the only basis for issuance of show cause notice. A complete procedure has been prescribed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 to take care of the development works carried out under the MNREGA Scheme.

¶20

It is evident from the records that the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act was not initiated in accordance with the Enquiry Rules, 1997, as such, the very inception of the action against the petitioner is vitiated in the absence of compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rules 3, 4 & 5 of the Rules.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts, as is evident from the records, the order of the District Magistrate, Mau, the respondent no. 2, dated 8.8.2025, cannot be sustained and is set aside. However, the District Magistrate, Mau is free to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law,

¶22

WRIC No. 30422 of 2025

¶23

¶24

adhering to mandatory provisions of the Enquiry Rules, 1997.

¶25