HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Smt. Jahantara Pradhan Of Gram Panchayat Norauli Bhikham .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Magistrate, Deoria, dated 12.9.2025, passed in exercise of powers under Section 27(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, directing recovery of a sum of Rs.21,974/- from the petitioner, who is Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Narauli Bhikham, Block Bhaluani, District Deoria for alleged irregularity committed in purchase of street lights installed in the village.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on complaint of one Sri Dheeraj Sharma, son of Sri Motilal Sharma, a preliminary enquiry was got conducted by the Deputy Agriculture Director, Deoria, who submitted his report dated 18.7.2025, in which the allegation in respect of all the development works was found to be in order and no irregularity was pointed out. However, subsequently by the order of Chief Development Officer, Deoria, dated 24.7.2025, a fresh report was called from the Deputy Agriculture Director, Deoria in respect of the alleged charges levelled against the petitioner. It is contended that a fresh report dated 14.8.2025 was submitted by the Deputy Agriculture Director, Deoria, in which a contrary finding has been recorded that payment has been made without verification of the actual work. However, no reference to the work has been made in the said report.

4. It is further contended that petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 1.5.2025 calling for explanation on four complaints relating to various development works carried out in the Gram Panchayat. However, the said show cause notice refers to enquiry report dated 25.2.2025 and 23.4.2025 submitted by Chief Executive Officer (Fisheries), Deoria and is in contemplation of proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charges by his representation dated 22.5.2025. However, the respondent no.2 without adhering to the explanation of the petitioner has proceeded to pass order dated 12.9.2025 directing recovery of the sum of Rs.21,974/- from the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 27(1) of the Act of 1947.

The aforesaid action of respondent no.2 is wholly without jurisdiction.

5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947, the respondent no.2 has proceeded to pass orders in purported exercise of powers under Section 27(1) of the Act of 1947, is not correct, as parallel proceedings under both the provisions of the Act of 1947 were initiated against the petitioner. Two separate enquiry officers were nominated to submit their enquiry report under Sections 95(1)(g) and 27 of the Act of 1947. He further contends that the show cause notice dated 1.5.2025 was in proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947. However, the order dated 12.9.2025 has been passed in proceedings under Section 27 of the Act of 1947, in which a separate enquiry was directed to be conducted by the Deputy Agriculture Director, Deoria.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The show cause notice dated 1.5.2025 shows that it was issued in proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947 initiated against the petitioner, on the basis of enquiry conducted by Chief Executive Officer (Fisheries), Deoria and does not relates with the enquiry under Section 27 of the Act of 1947. However, perusal of the order dated 12.9.2025 shows that the said order has also been passed on the enquiry