Allahabad High Court
SMT. SHILA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the removal of the petitioners as Administrator was invalid and restored their administrative powers, allowing surcharge proceedings to be considered later.
Summary
The petitioners, former Gram Pradhans now serving as Administrators under Government Orders, were subjected to proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 for alleged financial irregularities committed during their tenure as Pradhan. A notice demanding a reply was issued with an effectively short period of four days, and no reply was filed, leading to an order that seized their administrative powers and fixed a liability. The petitioners contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, the inquiry was procedurally defective, and that removal of their Administrator status required an independent surcharge inquiry under Section 27 of the Act. The Court observed that no irregularities were alleged after they assumed the Administrator role and that only a preliminary inquiry had been conducted, with surcharge proceedings not yet initiated. Consequently, the Court set aside the part of the impugned order that removed them as Administrators, restored their powers, and left open the possibility of future surcharge proceedings. The writ petitions were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice and inquiry under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was valid given the short notice period and alleged lack of jurisdiction.
- Whether removal of the petitioners from the post of Administrator without a full surcharge inquiry under Section 27 is lawful.
- Whether a preliminary inquiry can serve as a basis for initiating surcharge proceedings.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — s. 27, 95(1)(g)
Subjects
- Gram Pradhan
- Administrator
- U.P. Panchayat Raj Act
- Section 95
- Section 27
- surcharge
- preliminary inquiry
- jurisdiction
- notice period
- administrative powers
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 39422 of 2026
Smt. Shila Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satyam Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Alongwith
1. Writ-C No. 39657 of 2026 (Smt. Sumbul Jahan alias Sumbul vs. State of
U.P. and others)
2. Writ-C No. 39756 of 2026 (Smt. Sarvesh vs. State of U.P. and others)
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Satyam Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri
Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. In the present cases petitioners' tenure as Gram Pradhan was over,
however, in terms of Government Orders dated 25.05.2026 and 29.05.2026
they were exercising power as an Administrator.
3. Proceedings were initiated against petitioners under Section 95(1)(g) of
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 after their tenure as Pradhan was over and
when they are exercising aforesaid powers that during their tenure they have
committed financial irregularities.
4. A notice was issued to submit reply within a period of seven days which
effectively remain only four days since notice was received at a later stage.
Admittedly, no reply was submitted and impugned order was passed
whereby administrative powers were seized and a liability of certain amount
was determined.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that not only the notice
WRIC No. 39422 of 2026
2
was issued without jurisdiction but inquiry was also not conducted in terms
of relevant provisions. Otherwise also, a very short period was provided to
submit reply. Even if no reply was filed, the authority concerned cannot
accepted inquiry report only on a ground that no reply was filed, without
application of independent mind.
6. Learned counsel lastly submitted that nature of inquiry would only be a
preliminary for the purpose of imposing surcharge in terms of Section 27 of
Act which requires an independent inquiry as per procedure prescribed, i.e.,
on basis of an audit report as well as that since tenure of petitioners have
already over, therefore, at this stage they cannot be removed from the post of
Administrator.
7. I have considered aforesaid submissions and perused the material
available on record. It is not a case where petitioners have committed any
irregularity after they took over as an Administrator, therefore, considering
nature of inquiry as well as that proceedings of surcharge are still not
initiated, the Court finds that by way of impugned order only a preliminary
inquiry is conducted which could be a basis to initiate inquiry for
determination of surcharge.
8. In view of above, impugned orders dated 12.09.2026 are interfered only to
extent of it's later part, whereby petitioners are removed from the post of
Administrator and accordingly petitioners' power as an Administrator is
restored. So far as other argument is concerned, it may be considered as and
when required, if proceedings for surcharge is initiated.
9. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
September 30, 2026
AK (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…