Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 23033
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J
Baleshvar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
WRIT - C No. 40537 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gyan Chandra, Atul Kumar, Raghvendra Yadav
For the Respondents: CSC, Hari Narayan Singh
Surcharge proceedings under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, are recovery mechanisms for losses quantified during an audit while the official holds office; they cannot be initiated against an Ex-Pradhan for past acts where no such quantification occurred prior to demitting office.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 27 - U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 - Rules 256-258 - Surcharge proceedings against Ex-Pradhan - Maintainability - Surcharge proceedings are recovery proceedings for quantified losses arising from misconduct or negligence during tenure - Statutory scheme does not provide for initiating fresh inquiry into acts of an Ex-Pradhan after term ends, absent prior audit-based quantification of loss - Proviso to Section 27 only saves existing proceedings where liability is already fixed - Court will not entertain petitions driven by political rivalry to initiate inquiries against former office holders - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 3, 9, 13, 20, 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a resident, filed a complaint seeking an inquiry against an Ex-Pradhan for alleged embezzlement of public funds during her tenure. The petitioner contended that Section 27 of the 1947 Act allows for surcharge proceedings against former office holders. The respondents argued that the term of the office had ended, elections had since been held, and no loss was ever quantified during the tenure, rendering the surcharge mechanism inapplicable.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that surcharge proceedings are not a general inquiry mechanism but are predicated on the audit-based quantification of loss during the official's tenure. Absent such quantification during the person's term of office, no inquiry into past acts can be initiated under the guise of surcharge proceedings after the person has demitted office.
Issues: Whether a direction can be issued to conduct an inquiry against an Ex-Pradhan under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, for acts committed during her tenure after she has already demitted office.
Ratio Decidendi: Surcharge proceedings under Section 27 are strictly limited to quantified losses identified by audit; the Act provides no scheme for launching fresh investigations into a former Pradhan’s conduct once the tenure has expired.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks inquiry against ex-pradhan for alleged fund embezzlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. surcharge proceedings require quantified loss during audit while in office. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. no fresh surcharge proceedings can be initiated against an ex-pradhan. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. court will not settle political scores; petition for mandamus dismissed. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
1. Heard Sri Raghvendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad to consider and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the complaint dated 04.01.2021 filed by the petitioner with regard to initiating an inquiry against the respondent no. 6, who is an Ex Pradhan.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the period in office respondent no. 6 embezzled huge amount of public money and, thus, an inquiry is necessary for her conduct during the period she served as Pradhan of Village Rathaura Nagla Neev, Police Station Mohammadabad, Block Kamalganj, Tehsil Sadar, District Farrukhabad. He then submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in case of Shiv Kumar Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2022 LawSuit (All) 1243, had directed the concerned authorities to consider the complaint though the term of Pradhan in that writ petition had come to an end. According to learned counsel Section 27 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act of 1947’) provides for initiating an inquiry against an Ex-Pradhan in the form of surcharge.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, while opposing the writ petition, submitted that the term of Pradhan had come to an end in January 2021 and elections were held in the month of April 2021 and there is no scheme under the Act for initiating an inquiry once the Pradhan has demitted his office. He further submitted that in case inquiry was concluded and the amount was quantified by the authorities, as mentioned in Rule 256 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 , the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act of 1947 could have been saved.
5. I have heard the respective counsel and perused the material on record.
6. The short question before the Court is “whether once a Pradhan has demitted his office, a direction can be issued for conducting inquiry against his previous acts under Section 27 of the Act of 1947.”
7. By 73rd Constitutional amendment which came into effect from 24.04.1993, Part IX, containing Articles 243, 243-A to 243-O, was inserted in the Constitution to give effect to one of the directive principles of the State policy viz. Article 40 of the Constitution of India which directs the State to organize village panchayats as units of self government. Pursuant to the Constitutional amendment the States were required by the Centre to take steps to organize village panchayats on the lines of the provisions of the said Constitutional amendment by making law or amending the existing law suitably.
8. The Uttar Pradesh Legislature amended its Panchayat Raj Act by enacting the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force on 22.04.1994.
9. Article 243 of the Constitution defines ‘Gram Sabha’, ‘Panchayat’ and ‘Village’. Article 243-C provides for the composition of panchayats. Similarly, Article 243-A provides for duration of panchayat which shall be for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. Article 243-J provides for audit of accounts of panchayat, according to which the State Legislature may by law make provision with respect to the maintenance of accounts by panchayat and auditing of such accounts. The State Legislature vide U.P. Act No. 9 of 1994 inserted Section 27 which is provision for surcharge. Section 27 is extracted hereasunder;
“27. Surcharge- (1) Every Pradhan or Up-P
