Allahabad High Court
HARVEER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court quashed the recovery citation because the requisite orders under Sections 26 and 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 were not made.
Summary
The petitioner, who served as Pradhan from 2020 to 2025, faced a recovery citation of Rs. 4,12,717 under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, alleging embezzlement. The petitioner contended that a recovery order could not be issued without a specific order under Section 26 of the Act, which was absent from the citation. A notice dated 27.05.2026 sought a reply to an audit objection, and the petitioner responded on 17.08.2026, but the respondent failed to pass the mandatory order under Section 27 as required by the Act. The Court found this procedural lapse sufficient to interfere and quashed the impugned citation dated 20.07.2026. The Court directed the State to pass the required order under Section 27, read with Rule 258, and to furnish a copy to the petitioner, and thereafter disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a recovery citation under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 can be issued without a prior order under Section 26 of the Act.
- Whether the failure to pass an order under Section 27 of the Act after receipt of the petitioner's reply violates procedural requirements.
- Whether the impugned citation should be quashed on account of the procedural deficiencies.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — s. 26, 27, 95(1)(g)
Subjects
- Recovery proceedings
- Panchayat Raj Act
- Section 26
- Section 27
- Procedural compliance
- Writ petition
- Quashing of citation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35579 of 2026
Harveer Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, Rohit
Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner was a Pradhan from 2020 to 2025.
3. After the petitioner's tenure was over, proceedings were purportedly
initiated under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and some
notices were also issued and subsequently a recovery citation was issued to
recover Rs. 4,12,717/- on the ground of alleged embezzlement.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to pass an order of
recovery, there must be a specific order under Section 26 of "Act of 1947"
and the Rules framed thereunder. However, from the contents of citation,
there is no reference of any such order.
5. Otherwise also, Court finds that a notice was issued on 27.05.2026,
disclosing audit objection and a reply was sought from the petitioner.
Petitioner has filed reply dated 17.08.2026, therefore, concerned respondent
ought to have passed an order on basis of material available as required
under Section 27 of the Act. However, no such order was passed as reflected
in the impugned citation, therefore, a case for interference is made out.
6. Accordingly, impugned citation 20.07.2026 is hereby quashed. However,
this order will not come in the way if State respondent passes an order under
Section 27 of the Act read with Rule 258 of Rules framed therein if already
not passed and in case it has already been passed, a copy of the same be
WRIC No. 35579 of 2026
2
supplied to the petitioner for further proceedings.
7. With aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 9, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…