The main legal point established is that a Pradhan can be held liable for financial loss caused by neglect or misconduct, and the authority can issue surcharge notice and pass recovery orders based on misconduct found in the enquiry.

1. Smt. Bhanati Devi, who was earlier Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Birnai, Vikas Khand Deegh, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-C No. 32544 of 2010 (Smt. Bhanati Devi v. State of U.P. & others) wherein the proceedings undertaken under Section 27 (2) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 has been upheld.

2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner appellant has been performing and discharging duties as Gram Pradhan and at the point of time when she has been holding the office of Gram Pradhan complaint has been made against the conduct of the petitioner appellant and on the said complaint being made directives were issued to make enquiry and submit report. Thereafter, based on the report dated 12.8.2009 and 28.8.2009, so submitted, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner appellant on 31.8.2009 to submit reply under Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "1947 Act") read with U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rule, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Rules") have been undertaken, and financial and administrative powers of petitioner appellant was ceased by the District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar and two member Committee was constituted to conduct the final enquiry.

3. In the present matter enquiry in question was conducted and in the said enquiry this much finding has been recorded that excess payment was made but it was also mentioned that petitioner appellant was an illiterate lady. The enquiry committee proceeded to make a mention that it would be inappropriate to accept that the illiterate lady is guilty for the same, whereas the Secretary/Gram Vikas Adhikari and the supplier can be held responsible. Based on the enquiry report, that has been so submitted, the District Magistrate at no point of time proceeded to exonerate the petitioner appellant and contrarily a charge-sheet dated 22.3.2010 was given levelling therein two charges and also categorically mentioned therein that in case petitioner appellant desires, she can submit her reply failing which proceedings under Section 95 (1) (g) of 1947 Act read with 1997 Rules would be undertaken and apart from the same proceedings of recovery of the amount in question would also be undertaken. Pursuant thereto petitioner appellant submitted her reply before the District Magistrate and, thereafter, order impugned has been passed and same has been assailed before the learned Single Judge and learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition by passing following order;

"1. The writ petition having been restored vide order of date passed on Restoration Application, as requested by learned counsels for parties, I proceed to hear and decide this case finally at this stage.

2. Sri Arjun Singhal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ravindra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that so far as the other reliefs are concerned, the writ petition has rendered infructuous except relief no. 2, i.e., with respect to recovery of 50 per cent of Rs. 3,28,604/- from petitioner under Section 95 (1) (g) read with Section 27 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1947'). The aforesaid responsibility has been fixed by District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar relying on the enquiry report dated 13.1.2010 wherein it has been found that excess payment was made, and, therefore, the said amount has to be recovered from Gram Vikas Adhikari as also Gram Pradhan. There is no averment in the entire writ petition that this excess payment has not been paid at all and that is how the public funds have been misappropriated and defalcated. That being so, the order of recovery is perfectly justified. I, therefore, do not find it a fit case warranting interference.

3. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.

4. Interim order, if any, stan