Allahabad High Court
ARSHAD MALIKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the impugned order removing the petitioner from his administrative post is unsustainable and set it aside, allowing him to retain his powers.
Summary
An inquiry was launched under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up‑Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 against petitioner Arshad Malik for alleged irregularities during his tenure. The preliminary inquiry found him prima facie guilty and recommended a financial penalty, but further proceedings under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 256(1) of the Rules were still pending for a surcharge determination. The impugned order removed the petitioner from his administrative post, which he challenged on the ground that seizure of powers requires a proven charge and that his tenure had already ended, making an adverse order under the 1997 Rules impermissible. The High Court held that the removal order was unsustainable as it was based only on a preliminary inquiry and set it aside, directing that the petitioner continue to discharge administrative powers per Government Orders dated 25‑05‑2026 and 29‑05‑2026. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a preliminary inquiry finding of prima facie guilt can justify removal of a Panchayat administrator before the completion of proceedings under Section 27 and Rule 256(1).
- Whether administrative powers can be seized when the officer's tenure has ended and no final charge has been proved.
- Whether the impugned order removing the petitioner is legally sustainable under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up‑Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up‑Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 — s. Rule 256(1)
- Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act — s. 27
Subjects
- Administrative powers
- Preliminary inquiry
- Removal of Panchayat administrator
- Surcharge
- Section 27
- Rule 256(1)
- Panchayat Raj
- Writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 39723 of 2026
Arshad Malik
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Grijesh Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Girijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
H.C.Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. An inquiry was initiated under provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj
(Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997
against the petitioner that he has committed various irregularities in the work
done during his tenure.
3. After considering the reply submitted by petitioner, respondent no.2 came
to the conclusion that petitioner was prima facie found guilty of charges of
irregularities and has caused loss to the State, though financial penalty was
determined.
4. Admittedly, further proceedings as required under Section 27 of the Act
read with Rule 256 (1) framed thereunder is still to be commenced for
determination of surcharge, therefore, there is no irregularity in the
preliminary inquiry, since petitioner has liberty to place his case as and when
inquiry is initiated under aforesaid section in accordance with law.
5. Petitioner is further aggrieved that by the impugned order, his
administrative powers has been seized. Court finds that administrative
powers can be seized, only if some charge is proved against the petitioner,
however, since his tenure has already been over, no adverse order can be
passed under Rules, 1997, therefore, only on the basis of preliminary
inquiry, which could be basis for proper inquiry for 'surcharge' but cannot be
basis to pass impugned order.
WRIC No. 39723 of 2026
2
6. Accordingly, impugned order so far as later part is concerned is legally
unsustainable.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order is interfered only to the
extent of it later part, whereby petitioner is removed from the post of
Administrator and it is directed that petitioner will continue to discharge
administrative powers in terms of Government Orders dated 25.5.2026 and
29.5.2026
8. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 30, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…