Ram Ujagir Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ram Ujagir Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with direction to the District Magistrate, Basti to complete the formal enquiry pursuant to his order dated 25.9.2025 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within one month; the impugned order was left undisturbed at this stage, and the Court expressed no opinion on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint dated 22.1.2025 against the petitioner was invalid under Rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 for want of affidavits of all five complainants. +1 more

Court's answer

Filing of an affidavit by one of the complainants (Santosh Kumar Yadav) in support of the complaint is sufficient compliance with the Enquiry Rules, 1997; non-filing of affidavits by all the complainants does not render the complaint invalid.

Ratio / Principle

No interference is warranted with the impugned order ceasing the petitioner's financial and administrative powers, at this stage.

Key takeaways

The facts concerning charge no.3 require a detailed enquiry as to whether the digging of the pond was in the river bed or on the agricultural land of the villagers, as mentioned in the show cause notice.ratio¶15
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Basti to complete the formal enquiry in pursuance of his order dated 25.9.2025 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within one month from presentation of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Kumar, J.; WRIT-C No. 37048 of 2025; decided October 29, 2025): Gram Pradhan challenged the District Magistrate, Basti's order dated 25.9.2025 ceasing his financial and administrative powers in respect of Gram Panchayat Pithiya Lashkari. Petitioner argued the complaint dated 22.1.2025 by Santosh Kumar Yadav and four others violated Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 for want of affidavits of all five complainants, and that respondent no.2 did not apply his mind to the enquiry report and his explanation. Held: an affidavit filed by one complainant is sufficient compliance of the Enquiry Rules, 1997, and non-filing of affidavits by all complainants does not invalidate the complaint; however, the facts on charge no.3 (pond dug on land of Hari Ram, Badalu and Badri but not found during spot inspection) required detailed enquiry whether the digging was in the river bed or on agricultural land. No interference warranted with the impugned order at this stage; petition disposed of with direction to the District Magistrate to complete the formal enquiry in pursuance of his order dated 25.9.2025 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within one month. Court expressed no opinion on merits.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 37048 of 2025

Ram Ujagir

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others			.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Dharmendra Yadav	Kumar	Tripathi, Jawahir
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 9

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no.2 dated 25.9.2025 ceasing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Pithiya Lashkari, Block Dubauliya, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged complaint made against the petitioner, dated 22.1.2025, by Santosh Kumar Yadav and four others was not in accordance with Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, as it was not supported by affidavit of all the five complainants. It has been further contended that in pursuant to the show cause notice dated 10.6.2025, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 24.6.2025. The respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order has not applied his mind to the findings of the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by the petitioner before ceasing his financial and administrative powers.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the respondent no.2, after reproducing the findings of the enquiry report and the explanation filed by the petitioner, has recorded prima facie satisfaction in respect of the three charges in which it has been found that the pond which had been dug on the land of Hari Ram, Badalu and Badri

WRIC No. 37048 of 2025

2

were not in existence, even though money had been drawn.

I have perused the material brought on record.

It is evident from the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Basti dated 25.9.2025 that five charges had been levelled in the show cause notice against the petitioner in which charge no.3 related to the digging of pond in the private land of Hari Ram, Badalu and Badri. In the explanation to the said charge, the petitioner has accepted that the pond were dug up but at present, it is filled by silt, therefore, during the spot inspection no pond was found on the site. The aforesaid facts in itself requires a detailed enquiry as to whether the digging of pond was in the river bed or on the agricultural land of the villagers, as mentioned in the show cause notice.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was not in accordance with Rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. It is evident from the records that, one of the complainant, Santosh Kumar Yadav, had filed his affidavit in support of the complaint, which, in my opinion, is sufficient compliance of the Enquiry Rules, 1997. None filing of the affidavit by all the complainants would not render the complaint invalid.

In my opinion, no interference is warranted with the impugned order, at this stage.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the District Magistrate, Basti to get the formal enquiry, in pursuance of his order dated 25.9.2025, completed and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

October 29, 2025

Anil

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad