Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
There is no legal bar to the petitioner continuing to exercise administrative power until an adverse order is passed, and the pending inquiry must be concluded expeditiously.
Summary
The petitioner, an outgoing Pradhan, faced two separate inquiries—one for alleged embezzlement and another under Section 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Notices for recovery under Section 27(1) and for inquiry under Section 95(1)(g) were issued, and the petitioner’s reply was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to an order withdrawing his administrative powers and directing the continuation of the inquiry. The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of powers through a writ petition. The Court held that, in the absence of an adverse order specifically relating to the Section 95(1)(g) inquiry, there is no legal bar to the petitioner continuing to exercise his administrative functions, but the pending inquiry must be concluded expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed with directions to expedite the inquiry.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is barred from exercising administrative powers pending the conclusion of the inquiry under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
- Whether the withdrawal of the petitioner’s administrative powers is justified in the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — s. 27(1), 95(1)(g)
Subjects
- Administrative law
- Panchayat Raj Act
- Section 95(1)(g)
- Embezzlement
- Writ petition
- Suspension of powers
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37519 of 2026
Vinod Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhawesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Bhawesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri
Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. Petitioner, an outgoing Pradhan, has faced two inquiries. One for alleged
embezzlement and subsequently under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947.
3. On basis of inquiry of alleged embezzlement a notice for recovery dated
23.01.2026 was issued under Section 27(1) of Act. On the same date a notice
was issued under Section 95(1)(g) of Act and subsequently also another notice
dated 22.04.2026 was issued under Section 95(1)(g), to which petitioner has
filed a reply dated 10.06.2026, however, it was not found satisfactory,
therefore, impugned order dated 29.07.2026 was passed whereby administrative
power of petitioner in terms of Government Orders dated 25.05.2026 and
29.05.2026 was withdrawn and a direction was passed to proceed with inquiry
under Section 95(1)(g) of Act. So far as proceeding for recovery is concerned,
petitioner has not come up about further detail.
4. In aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that inquiry so initiated against
petitioner, if already not concluded, be concluded expeditiously. Meanwhile,
there is no legal bar if petitioner may continue to exercise administrative power
as till date there is no adverse order against him so far as inquiry under Section
95(1)(g) of Act is concerned.
WRIC No. 37519 of 2026
2
5. With aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
September 18, 2026
AK (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…