Ajeejun Nisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj and 2 Others

The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 11.12.2024, whereby the financial and the administrative powers of the petitioner have been seized in exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act read with UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997.

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the elected Gram Pradhan and prior to passing of the impugned order, a similar order was passed against the petitioner, seizing the financial and the administrative powers and it was subject matter of challenge being Writ-C No.10439 of 2023, in which an interim was passed in favour of the petitioner on 05.12.2023. The said writ petition is said to be pending.

¶11

It is argued that subsequently, based upon three allegations, a formal inquiry was got conducted against the petitioner. The said inquiry report dated 02.07.2024 is on record as Annexure no.3 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the said preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice. The petitioner appears to have given a reply to the findings of the inquiry report and denied the allegations. After considering the report of the preliminary inquiry and the reply given by the

¶12

petitioner, the order impugned was passed.

¶13

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Rule 47 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, the duties of the Pradhan have been specified, which are as under:-

¶14

" 47. Duties of the Pradhan of Gaon Panchayat - Unless prevented by reasonable cause, it shall be the duty of the Pradhan-

¶15

(a) (i) to convene and preside at all the meetings of Gaon Panchayat, and

¶16

(ii) to control the transaction of business at the meetings and preserve order ;

¶17

(b) to watch over the finance and superintend the executive administration of the Gaon Panchayat and bring to its notice any defect therein ;

¶18

(c) to superintend and control the establishment maintained by the Gaon Panchayat ;

¶19

(d) to carry out the resolution of the Gaon Panchayat ;

¶20

(e) to arrange for maintenance of the various registers provided under the rules and to carry on all correspondence on behalf of the Gaon Panchayat ; and Gaon Sabha ;

¶21

(f) to arrange for execution of various works for the custody of the property of the Gaon Panchayat and for the assessment and collection of taxes rates and fees imposed by the Gaon Panchayat ;

¶22

(g) to file civil case and launch prosecution on behalf of the Gaon Panchayat and the Gaon Sabha; and

¶23

(h) to perform such other duties as are required of or imposed on him by or under the Act or any other law."

¶24

It is argued that none of the allegations, prima facie point to any infirmity in relation to the notice prescribed under Rule 47. He draws my attention that the three charges that were levelled.

¶25

The first being that certain stationery were purchased. However, no approval was sought in the open meeting of the Gram Sabha. It was further recorded that the payment of Rs.9,650/- made to one of firms, namely, M/S. Kripa Shankar Sareni was found to be different in terms of the bill vouchers and the quantity of the stationery supplied and as such, prima facie a view was drawn that the amount spent on the stationery

¶26

was not warranted and no stock register could be produced in respect of the said supply. The reply of the petitioner was also noticed, wherein it was stated that the approval was sought in the open meeting on 21.04.2023. It was also stated in defence that the items were purchased separately and the payments were also made jointly. A photo-copy of the stock register was also produced. It was also defended that the quorum was present in respect of the said meeting.

¶27

The second charge was with regard to the repairing of the hand-pumps. In the preliminary inquiry, it was found that for the financial year 2023-24, 30 hand-pumps were repaired, for which various payments were made. It was recorded that without obtaining quotations, all the work was assigned to one firm. It was recorded that there was no material to suggest that quotations were received from three different firms. It was further recorded that in terms of the preliminary inquiry with regard to the five hand-pumps, two bills were found in a gap of six months to two years. The defence of the petitioner was also recorded, wherein it was stated that the hand-pumps were got repaired on 10.07.2022 up to 18.12.2022 and from 26.12.2022 up to 22.06.2023, on which amounts were spent. It was further taken as a defence that as the expenses were likely to be less than Rs.20,000/-, no quotations were called with regard to the five hand-pumps, wherein it was found that the payments have been made twice over. It was defended that the said five handpumps were got repaired again. The said hand-pumps related to a primary school and the correspondences in between the Panchayat and the Principal were also produced. The order impugned records that on the basis of the material produced and the statements of few villagers, it was clear that the repair was done in a span of 7 to 4 months and the signatures of the petitioner were found on the certificates in respect of the said

¶28

repair, which was found to be contrary to the provisions as the same ought to have been verified by a person higher in post of the Secretary of the Panchayat. The defence of the petitioner that the amount was less than Rs.20,000/-, as such, no quotation was required, also appeared to be wrong. In view of the bills, which is total Rs.96,276/-.

¶29

The third charge was with regard to laying of Kadanja . It was recorded that although, the said Kadanja was laid, however, the guidelines were not followed. The reply of the petitioner was also noticed, wherein a defence that the decision has been taken in an open meeting, in which the quorum was duly present.

¶30

In conclusion, it was recorded that in respect of the stationery items, it was prima facie found that an amount of Rs.9,650/- was not spent properly. With regard to re-repair of the hand-pumps, the same were found to be suspicious, for which the petitioner and the Sachiv were found to be guilty of causing financial loss to the extent of Rs.25,696/-. In view thereof, rejecting the submission of the petitioner, the order impugned was passed seizing the financial and the administrative powers of the petitioner.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent, based upon the instructions, argues that the order impugned was passed after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. It further records that the petitioner was guilty of suspiciously paying the amount towards purchase of the stationery and in the open meeting on 21.04.2023, wherein quorum was not present. It further records that as the reply of the petitioner was found to be incorrect, the order seizing the financial and the administrative powers was rightly passed and requires no interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶32

of India.

¶33

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima facie the order impugned has been passed based on two improprieties allegedly done by the petitioner. The first being payment of an amount towards purchase of stationery and there being no quorum in the open meeting held on 21.04.2023. Prima facie, the findings in the impugned order were not supported by the materials inasmuch as the open meeting was held, in which requisite quorum was present and as such, there appears to be no material to form an opinion that the requisite quorum was not present. The order impugned itself records that as proper recording were not done with regard to the payment of Rs.9,650/-, it appears to having done suspiciously. The said finding also appears to be perverse and without there being any material to form an opinion that the same was misappropriated. The second ground with regard to the five hand-pumps also appears to be perverse. Even otherwise, the material to suggest any infractions as specified under Rule 47 is prima facie missing so as take extreme steps to seize the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan which is drastic measure, to be restored only that there appears to be deliberate infractions of duties specified under Rule 47.

¶34

In view of the findings recorded above, the order impugned seizing the financial and administrative powers dated 11.12.2024 is set aside. However, the respondents shall proceed with the final inquiry in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶35

The petition stands disposed of .

¶36

Any observations made herein, would not affect the merits of the final inquiry, which will be done in accordance with law.

¶37

Order Date :- 20.1.2025/Ashutosh

¶38

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajeejun Nisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeejun Nisha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Mrityunjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Afsar Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 9 Others

Ram Krishna Agrawal Vs IV Addl. Distt. Judge Sultanpur and Others

Anil Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs Commissioner, Ayodhya Division,Ayodhya/ Revisional Authority and 4 Others

Ramesh Vs Shobhnath