Allahabad High Court
PANNA LALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The impugned order imposing penalty and removal on the petitioner is set aside as it lacks factual and legal basis.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Pradhan, challenged a District Magistrate's order that imposed a one‑third penalty on him, removed him from administrative duties, and imposed the remaining penalties on other officials following an inquiry into a boundary‑wall construction. The inquiry report exonerated the petitioner, yet a charge‑sheet was issued against him without any allegation or explanation for omitting notice to another officer. The petitioner argued that he was only exercising administrative powers and that his removal was unwarranted, and that surcharge recovery should follow Rules 256 and 257 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, which require an audit report that was absent. The court found merit in these arguments, holding that the charge‑sheet and penalty were procedurally defective and that there was no legal basis to remove the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11‑August‑2026 was set aside, and the writ petition was disposed, without precluding separate surcharge proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether a charge‑sheet and penalty can be imposed on a petitioner who was exonerated in the inquiry report.
- Whether removal of a former Pradhan from administrative duties is justified when he was only exercising administrative powers and his tenure has ended.
- Whether surcharge recovery must be conducted in accordance with Rules 256 and 257 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, requiring an audit report.
- Whether the impugned order is legally sustainable in view of procedural deficiencies.
Subjects
- Administrative law
- Penalty
- Surcharge
- Panchayat Raj Rules
- Charge-sheet
- Removal from office
- Inquiry
- Writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35495 of 2026
Panna Lal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Prashant Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri P.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner before this Court is an outgoing Pradhan and presently he
was exercising only his administrative powers in terms of relevant
Government Orders issued from time to time.
3. On a complaint, inquiry was initiated in regard to construction of
boundary wall/interlocking work, but ID was not generated for that part of
work.
4. Accordingly, an inquiry report dated 9.7.2026 was submitted whereby
the then Consulting Engineer, Gram Panchayat Officer and Assistant
Development Officer were found guilty but no finding was returned so far
as petitioner was concerned.
5. On basis of aforesaid inquiry report, a notice/charge-sheet was issued
to petitioner as well as above three persons. The District Magistrate
passed the impugned order imposing 1/3rd of penalty upon the petitioner
and was removed from undertaking administrative work and remaining
1/3rd penalty upon Secretary Gram Panchayat and Consulting Engineer
respectively.
6. I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner on
following grounds:
(a) First of all in the inquiry no allegation was made against the petitioner,
WRIC No. 35495 of 2026
2
still a charge-sheet was issued against him also without assigning any
reason not to act as per report. There was no explanation why no notice
was issued to Assistant Development Officer.
(b) Petitioner was exercising only his administrative powers, therefore,
question to remove him from his post does not arise.
(c) Since it is a case of recovery, therefore, proceedings ought to have
been undertaken in terms of Rules 256 and 257 of U.P. Panchayat Raj
Rules, 1947 for recovery of surcharge which requires certain precondition
such as audit report which is absolutely missing in the present case.
7. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to dispute the above
submissions on facts as well as on law.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order does not survive on
facts as well as on law. Notice/charge-sheet was issued against the
petitioner on basis of an inquiry, where he was exonerated. Procedure for
imposing surcharge was not undertaken and there was no ground to
remove the petitioner who was exercising only administrative powers and
since tenure as Pradhan is already over.
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 11.8.2026 is set-aside and it legal
consequence shall follow. However, this order will not come in the way if
separate proceedings are initiated under relevant provisions for imposing
surcharge.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 8, 2026
SB
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…