The removal of a Gram Pradhan is legally unsustainable if it is based on a preliminary enquiry without following the mandatory formal enquiry procedure and providing an opportunity to be heard as prescribed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997.

1. Heard Sri Astitva Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no.2 dated 23.1.2026, removing the petitioner from the office of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Churra Shakatpur, Block Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a complaint had been made against the petitioner alleging financial and other irregularities committed by the Gram Pradhan while carrying out development work in the Gram Panchayat. Proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was initiated against the petitioner, in which an enquiry report dated 15.3.2024 was submitted, where in respect of Item No.8 relating to work of re-bore of 7 Hand-pumps in financial year 2021-2022 was investigated, in which the enquiry officer recorded a categorical finding that after two years physical verification is not possible. However, pursuant to the final enquiry, which culminated by the order of the District Magistrate dated 31.8.2024, financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were restored. Subsequently, another complaint dated 8.5.2025 and 5.3.2025 is made by one Sri Jhankar Singh son of Mulayam Singh that in financial year 2021-22, the Hand-pump near the house of Virpal was not re-bored and a sum of Rs.33,769/- was withdrawn and the earlier enquiry report is only in respect of re-bore of 7 Hand-pumps instead of 14 Hand-pumps, in respect of which money was withdrawn.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam, Pilibhit, in which a finding was recorded that the re-bore of Hand-pump, which had to be done near the house of Virpal, was carried out near the house of Harish Mishra, which was without any prior approval and the decision of the Gram Panchayat. It is contended that the respondent no.2, without resorting to the procedure provided under Rules 6 and 7 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 for holding formal enquiry, proceeded to issue a show cause notice dated 24.10.2025 to the petitioner inviting her explanation and has passed the impugned order dated 23.1.2026, removing her from the office of Pradhan. It is contended that the petitioner was not associated with enquiry done at the preliminary stage, as such, no action for removing her from the office of Pradhan can be undertaken. It has been further contended that once an enquiry in respect of work done in 2021-22 had been enquired and a finding was recorded that after two years, no physical verification can be done, then there was no justification for holding the petitioner guilty for the same charge on a preliminary enquiry report conducted after three years.

5. The perusal of the order of District Magistrate, 23.1.2026, shows that the preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 11.8.2025, pursuant to which a show cause notice was issued on 24.10.2025, after which no further action had been undertaken as contemplated under Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 and the order dated 23.1.2026 has been passed removing the petitioner from the office of Pradhan. Admittedly, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner by the enquiry officer, as such, the very basis of the order dated 23.1.2026 stands vitiated.

6. Matter requires consideration.

7. All the respondents may file counter affidavit wi