Pinki Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Heard Shri R.B.S. Rathaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. representing the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Shri Subhash Chandra Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4- Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Sitapur (Enquiry Officer).

¶10

By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur removing the petitioner from the office of Village Pradhan, Gram Panchayat- Ramgarh, Development Block-Bhondlamau, District- Sitapur for alleged embezzlement of public money.

¶11

Assailing validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner had not been given any opportunity to participate in the final enquiry held against her in which she has allegedly been found guilty. Further, after submission of the final enquiry report, the petitioner was not given any opportunity by providing her a copy of the enquiry report and by calling upon her to show cause against the proposed action based upon the enquiry report.

¶12

Although the learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the writ petition on the basis of instructions provided to them and they have submitted that the impugned order itself reveals that the petitioner's reply

¶13

WRIC No. 914 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

has been taken into consideration and, therefore, the petitioner's submission that opportunity has not been provided to her is incorrect.

¶16

A copy of the detailed enquiry report has been provided to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with the detailed instructions provided by District Panchayat Raj Officer, a copy whereof is taken on record. The enquiry report refers to reply dated 01.10.2024 submitted by the Village Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Sachiv in response to the show cause notice dated 17.09.2024. This show cause notice had been issued in the course of preliminary enquiry thereafter the petitioner's financial and administrative powers have been seized.

¶17

The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing Writ C No.4610 of 2025, which was allowed by means of an order dated 19.05.2025 wherein this court recorded that the District Magistrate had merely recorded the defense taken by the petitioner and has not dealt with the points raised by the petitioner in defense. Accordingly, this Court had quashed the order dated 06.05.2025 seizing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner. The Court had left it open to conclude the final enquiry.

¶18

During final enquiry proceedings, no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner. A copy of the final enquiry report dated 28.10.2025 has been produced before this Court along with a copy of the written instructions provided by the District Panchayat Raj Officer to the learned Chief Standing Counsel which reveals that it is recorded in the final enquiry report that the Enquiry Officers had visited the village and conducted spot verification of the development works on 15.07.2025, 12.08.2025, 03.09.2025 & 27.10.2025 in presence of Gram Pradhan and other persons. However, the enquiry report does not reveal that the Enquiry Officer has given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The proviso appended to Section 95(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act provides that no action shall be taken under clauses (f) or (g), except after giving to the body or person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause for the action proposed. Further, Rule 6 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UP-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 lays down the procedure for enquiry and it makes it

¶19

WRIC No. 914 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

mandatory for the Enquiry Officer to deliver to the person against whom he has to hold enquiry, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require that person by a notice in writing, to submit within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person, and to appear before him on such day and at such time as may be specified. The rule further provides that if a person fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, the Enquiry Officer shall take the evidence, and if there is a complaint, require him to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charge.

¶22

Apparently, the statutory provision contained in the proviso appended to Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and procedure laid down in Rule 6 of Enquiry Rules, 1997 has not been called in the present case which vitiates the Enquiry proceedings and also consequent removal order dated 14.01.2026.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The removal order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur as well as the final enquiry report dated 28.10.2025 are quashed. The District Magistrate, Sitapur is directed to institute a final enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner afresh and it is clarified that the enquiry shall be conducted keeping in view the provisions contained in the proviso appended to Section 95 of the Act, 1947 and Rules 6 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997.

¶24

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶25

February 10, 2026

¶26

Pradeep/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pinki Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinki Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 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

Similar cases

Visheshwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

Om Prakash Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 13 Others

Mahendra Kumar Agrawal vs Nagar Panchayat Maholi Distt. Sitapur and Another

Guru Prasad Maurya vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Zonal Unit, Lucknow

Shivnath Kahar @ Shivnath Rampyare Kahar vs Shiv Kumari

Krishna Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy.Secondary Education and 4 Ors.