# Smt. Sangeeta Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 249
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-18
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 7170 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sangeeta-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51141
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P.Panchayat Raj (Removal
of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members)
Enquiry Rules, 1997 - Rule 6 & 7-
Impugned order-removal of the Petitioner
from the post of Pradhan-passed on the basis
of an enquiry report -which is a spot
inspection report-enquiry conducted against
the petitioner was in utter violation to the
Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1947-petitioner
was never issued a charge sheet and was not
called upon by the Enquiry Officers to submit
his reply to the charge sheet-impugned order
quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Smt. Sangeeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
249
(2024) 10 ILRA 249
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ-C No. 7170 of 2024

Smt. Sangeeta Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
Abhishek
Durgesh Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P.Panchayat Raj (Removal
of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members)
Enquiry Rules, 1997 - Rule 6 & 7-
Impugned order-removal of the Petitioner
from the post of Pradhan-passed on the basis
of an enquiry report -which is a spot
inspection report-enquiry conducted against
the petitioner was in utter violation to the
Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1947-petitioner
was never issued a charge sheet and was not
called upon by the Enquiry Officers to submit
his reply to the charge sheet-impugned order
quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Quadri Begum Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported
in 2009 (4) AWC 3608 Allahabad

2. Sher Ali Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported in 2013
(7) ADJ 736

3. Mahendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported
in 2014 (1) ADJ 434

4. Pushpa Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported in
2014(1) ADJ 205,
5. Mukesh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported
in 2014 (1) ADJ 215

6. Shaukat Hussain Vs St. of U.P. reported in
2019 (7) ADJ 429

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed
for following relief:-

 "1. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the Final Enquiry Report dated
14.03.2024, Show Cause Notice dated
12.04.2024 and the impugned order dated
26.07.2024 passed by opp. Party no. 2 i.e.
District Magistrate Raibareli removing the
petitioner from the post of Gram Pradhan
pertaining to Gram Panchayat- Arakha,
Block
&
Tehsil-
Unchahar,
Distt.-
Raibareli, as contained in Anneuxres No.1,
2 & 3 to the writ petition."

3. Brief facts of the case are that
the petitioner was elected as a Pradhan of
Gram Panchayat, Post-Arakha, Block &
Tehsil-
Unchahar,
District-
Raebareli.
Certain complaints were made by the
villagers, namely, Sunil Kumar son of
Mewa Lal, Rakesh Kumar son of Late Ram
Nath against the petitioner to the District
Magistrate, Raebareli alleging therein the
misappropriation of public money by the
petitioner in carrying out the development
work. The complaint made against the
petitioner was got enquired by District
Magistrate,
Raebareli
and
preliminary
reports dated 21.10.2022 and 29.10.2022
were
submitted
before
the
District
Magistrate, Raebareli by the District Social
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Welfare Officer, Raebareli and Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Raebareli. After
considering
the
preliminary
enquiry
reports, a show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner by the District Magistrate,
Raebareli on 04.11.2022 as to why
proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P.
Panchyat Raj Act, 1947 should not be
initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner
submitted his reply to the aforesaid show
cause notice on 08.12.2022 to the District
Magistrate, Raebareli. A copy of the reply
has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the
writ petition. By order dated 12.05.2023,
the District Magistrate in exercise of its
powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P.
Panchyat Raj Act, 1947 ceased the
financial and administrative powers of the
petitioner.
By
another
order
dated
16.06.2023 passed by District Magistrate,
Raebareli, a three member committee was
constituted for discharging functions of the
Gram Pradhan and a final enquiry was also
directed.
District
Programme
Officer,
Raebareli and Executive Engineer Khand 2
Lok Nirman Vibhag were appointed
Enquiry Officers for conducting the final
enquiry. The petitioner filed a writ petition
being Writ C No. 8462 of 2023 (Sangeeta
Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others) before
this Court challenging the order dated
12.05.2023 passed by District Magistrate
by which the financial and administrative
powers of the petitioner were ceased. This
Court by order dated 04.10.2023 directed
the learned Standing Counsel to file a
counter affidavit and the said writ petition
is still pending. Copy of order dated
04.10.2023 is annexed as Annexure No. 9
to the writ petition. The aforementioned
Enquiry Officers submitted a final enquiry
report on 14.03.2024 which has been
annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ
petition. On the basis of final enquiry
report dated 14.03.2024, the District
Magistrate, Raebareli issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner on 12.04.2024
directing the petitioner to submit his
explanation within fifteen days from the
date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner
submitted a detailed explanation/ reply to
the enquiry report on 02.05.2024 denying
the charges levied against the petitioner
relating to financial irregularities and
misappropriation of public money. The
petitioner also raised objections regarding
the procedure adopted by the Enquiry
Officers in conducting the final enquiry.
Copy of the explanation submitted by the
petitioner dated 02.05.2024 has been filed
as Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition.
The District Magistrate, Raebareli on
26.07.2024 passed an order removing the
petitioner from the post of Post-Arakha,
Block & Tehsil- Unchahar, District-
Raebareli. Hence the present writ petition.

4. Contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the order impugned
removing the petitioner from the post of
Pradhan has been passed on the basis of an
enquiry report dated 14.03.2024, which is
nothing but a spot inspection report. It has
also been contended by counsel for the
petitioner that State of U.P. has framed
U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan,
Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules,
1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of
1997') in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 110 read with Clause (g) of
sub-Section (1) of Section 95 of the U.P.
Panchyat Raj Act, 1947. The procedure for
holding final enquiry has been provided in
Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1997. It has
been contended that the order impugned
has been passed only on the basis of a spot
inspection made by the Enquiry Officers
and the enquiry conducted against the
petitioner was in utter violation to the Rules
6 and 7 of the Rules of 1947.
10 All. Smt. Sangeeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
251
5. Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Rules
of 1997 are quoted as under:-

 "6. Procedure for the enquiry.-
(1) The substance of the imputations, and a
copy of the complaint referred to in Rule 3,
if any, shall be forwarded to the Enquiry
Officer by the State Government.

 (2) The Enquiry Officer shall
draw up:-

 (a)
the
substance
of
the
imputations into definite and distinct
articles of charge; and

 (b) a statement of the imputations
in support of each article of charge, which
shall contain a statement of all relevant
facts and a list of documents by which, and
list of witnesses by whom, the articles are
proposed to be sustained.

 (3) The Enquiry Officer shall
deliver or cause to be delivered to the
person against whom he is to hold the
enquiry, a copy of the articles of charge,
the statement of the imputations and a list
of documents and witnesses by which each
article of charge is proposed to be
sustained and shall require that person by
a notice in writing, to submit within such
time as may be specified, a written
statement of his defence and to state
whether he desires to be heard in person,
and to appear before him on such day and
at such time as may be specified.

 (4) On receipt of the written
statement of defence, the Enquiry Officer
shall enquire into such of that articles as
are not admitted and where all the articles
of charge have been admitted in the written
statement of defence, the Enquiry Officer
shall record his findings on each charge
after taking such evidence as he may think
fit.

 (5) If the person who has
admitted any of the articles of charge in his
written statement of defence, appears
before the Enquiry Officer, he shall ask him
whether he is guilty or has any defence to
make and if he pleads guilty to any of the
articles of charge, the Enquiry Officer shall
record the plea, sign the record and obtain
the signature of that person thereon, and
return a finding of guilt in respect of those
charges.

 (6) If the person fails to appear
within the specified time or refuses or omits
to plead, the Enquiry Officer shall take the
evidence, and if there is a complaint,
require him to produce the evidence by
which he proposes to prove the articles of
charge, and shall adjourn the case to a
later date not exceeding fifteen days, after
recording an order that the said person
may, for the purpose of preparing his
defence:-

 (a) Inspect within five days of the
order or within such further time not
exceeding five days as the Enquiry Officer
may allow, the documents specified in the
list referred to in sub-rule (2);

 (b) submit a list of witnesses to be
examined on his behalf;

 (c) give a notice within ten
days of the order or within such further
time not exceeding ten days as the
Enquiry Officer may allow, for the
discovery
or
production
of
any
documents that are relevant to the
enquiry and are in the possession of the
State Government, but not mentioned in
the list referred to in sub-rule (2).
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (7) The person against whom the
enquiry is being held may take the
assistance of any other person to present
the case on his behalf, and the Enquiry
Officer may appoint any person as a
Presenting Officer to assist him in
conducting the enquiry.

 Provided that a legal practitioner
shall not be engaged or appointed under
this sub-rule.

 (8) If the person applies orally or
in writing for the supply of copies of the
statements of witnesses mentioned in the
list referred to in sub-rule (2), the Enquiry
Officer shall furnish him with such copies
as early as possible, and in any case, not
later
than
three
days
before
the
commencement of the examination of the
witnesses by whom any of the articles of
charge is proposed to be proved.

 (9) The Enquiry Officer shall, on
receipt of the notice for the discovery or
production of documents, forward the same
or copies thereof to the authority in whose
custody or possession the documents are
kept, with a requisition for the production
of the documents by such date as may be
specified in such requisition.

 Provided that the Enquiry Officer
may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
refuse to requisition such of the documents as
are, in his opinion, not relevant to the case.

 (10) On receipt of the requisition
referred to in sub-rule (9), every authority
having the custody or possession of the
requisitioned documents shall produce the
same before the Enquiry Officer.

 Provided that if the authority
having the custody or possession of the
requisitioned documents is satisfied for
reasons to be recorded in writing that the
production of all or any of such documents
would be against the public interest or
security of the State, it shall inform the
Enquiry
Office
accordingly
and
the
Enquiry
Officer
shall,
on
being
so
informed, communicate the information to
the person against whom the enquiry is
being held and withdraw the requisition
made by him for the production or
discovery of documents.

 (11) On the date fixed for the
enquiry,
the
oral
and
documentary
evidence by which the articles of charge
are proposed shall be produced and the
witness shall be examined by the Enquiry
Officer by or on behalf of the complainant,
if there is one, and may be cross-examined
by or on behalf of the person against whom
the enquiry is being held. The witnesses
may be re- examined by the Enquiry Officer
or the complainant, as the case may be, on
any point on which they have been crossexamined, but not on any new matter,
without the leave of the Enquiry Officer.

 (12) The Enquiry Officer may
allow production of evidence not included
in the list given to the person against whom
the enquiry is being held, or may itself call
for new evidence or recall and re-examine
any witness and in such case the said
person shall be entitled to have if he
demands it, a copy of the list of further
evidence proposed to be produced and an
adjournment of the enquiry for three clear
days before the production of such
evidence,
exclusive
of
the
day
of
adjournment and the day to which the
enquiry is adjourned. The Enquiry Officer
shall give the said person an opportunity of
inspecting such documents before they are
taken on the record. The Enquiry Officer
10 All. Smt. Sangeeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253
may also allow the said person to produce
new evidence, if he is of the opinion that
the
production
of
such
evidence
is
necessary in the interest of justice.

 Note-New evidence shall not be
permitted or called for or any witness shall
not be recalled to fill up any gap in the
evidence. Such evidence may be called for
only when there is an inherent lacuna or
defect in the evidence which has been
produced originally.

 (13) When the evidence for
proving the articles of charge against the
person against whom the enquiry is being
held, is closed, the said person shall be
required to state his defence orally or in
writing as he may prefer. If the defence is
made orally it shall be recorded, and the
said person shall be required to sign the
record. In either case, a copy of the
statement of defence shall be given to the
complainant, if any.

 (14) The evidence on behalf of the
person against whom the enquiry is being
held shall than be produced. The said
person may examine himself in his own
behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses
produced by the said person shall then be
examined and shall be liable to crossexamination,
re-examination
and
examination
by
the Enquiry
Officer,
according to the provisions applicable to
the witnesses for proving the articles of
charge.

 (15) The Enquiry Officer may,
after the person against whom the enquiry
is being held closes his case, and shall, if
the said person has not examined himself,
generally
question
him
on
the
circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him.
 (16) The Enquiry Officer may,
after the completion of the production of
evidence, hear the complainant, if any and
the person against whom the enquiry is
being held, or permit them, or him, as the
case may be, to file written briefs of their
respective cases.

 (17) If the person to whom a copy
of the articles of charge has been delivered
does not submit the written statement of
defence on or before th date specified for
the purpose or does not appear in person
before the Enquiry officer or otherwise
fails or refuses to comply with the
provisions of this rule, the Enquiry Officer
may hold the enquiry ex parte.

 (18)
Whenever
the
Enquiry
Officer after having heard and recorded
the whole or any part of the evidence in an
enquiry, ceases to exercise jurisdiction
therein and is succeeded by another
Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer so
succeeding may act on the evidence so
recorded by his predecessor or partly
recorded by himself.

 Provided that if the succeeding
Enquiry Officer is of the opinion that
further examination of any of the witnesses
whose evidence has already been recorded
is necessary in the interest of justice he my
recall, examine, cross- examine and reexamine any such witness as hereinbefore
provided.

 7. Report of the Enquiry Officer-
- After the conclusion of the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report,
which shall contain-

(a) the articles of charge
and the statement of
the imputations;
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (b) the defence of the person
against whom the enquiry has been held;

(b) the assessment of the
evidence in respect of
each article of charge;

 (d) the findings on each article of
charge and reasons therefor.

 Explanation.--If in the opinion of
the Enquiry Officer the proceedings of the
enquiry establish any article of charge
different from the original articles of
charge, he may record his findings on such
article of charge.

 Provided that the findings on
such article of charge shall not be recorded
unless the person against whom the enquiry
has been held has either admitted the facts
on which such article of charge is based or
has had a reasonable opportunity of
defending himself against such articles of
charge."

6. It has been further contended by
counsel for the petitioner that from the
perusal of the Rules of 1997 framed for
enquiry against the alleged misconduct by
the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members, it
is
apparent
that
the
rules
do
not
contemplate only a spot inspection by the
Enquiry Officers but requires that Enquiry
Officer shall brought the substance of
imputation into definite and distinct articles
of charge and a statement of imputations in
support of each article of charge, which
shall contain a statement of all relevant
facts, list of documents and the list of
witnesses by whom the articles are
proposed to be sustained. Rule 6(3) of the
Rules of 1997 also provides that the
Enquiry Officer shall deliver or cause to be
delivered to the person against whom he
has to hold the enquiry, a copy of articles
of charge, the statement of imputations and
a list of documents and witnesses by which
each article of charge is proposed to be
sustained and shall also require that person
by a notice in writing to submit within such
time as may be specified, a written
statement of his defence and also to state
whether he desires to be heard in person
and appear before him on such day at such
time as may be specified. Rule 6(4) of the
Rules of 1997 provides that on receipt of
written statement of defence, the Enquiry
Officer shall enquire into such of that
articles as are not admitted and where all
the articles of charges have been admitted
in the written statement of defence, the
Enquiry Officer shall record his finding on
each charge after taking evidence as he
may think fit.

7. Counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that from the perusal of
order impugned passed by the District
Magistrate, Raebareli dated 26.07.2024, it
is apparent that the order has been passed
only on the basis of spot inspection made
by the Enquiry Officers. It has been further
contended that the enquiry has been
conducted in violation of Rules 6 and 7 of
the Rules of 1997 as the petitioner was
never issued a charge sheet and was not
called upon by the Enquiry Officers to
submit his reply to the charge sheet. It has
also been pointed out by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that
even from the perusal of the enquiry report,
it is apparent that same does not mention
regarding the compliance of Rules 6 and 7
of the Rules of 1997 but only mentions
about the spot inspection conducted by the
Enquiry Officers. There is no mention in
the enquiry report that any charge sheet
was issued to the petitioner, a reply was
10 All. Smt. Sangeeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
255
called for from the petitioner, date and time
were fixed for the enquiry. Thus, according
to the petitioner, the order impugned has
been passed in violation of Rules 6 and 7 of
Rules of 1997 framed for the purpose of
holding an enquiry.

8. In this regard, learned counsel
for the petitioner relied upon judgments of
this Court in case of Quadri Begum Vs.
State of U.P. And Others reported in 2009
(4) AWC 3608 Allahabad, Sher Ali Vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in 2013
(7) ADJ 736, Mahendra Singh Vs. State
of U.P. And Others reported in 2014 (1)
ADJ 434, Pushpa Vs. State of U.P. and
Others reported in 2014(1) ADJ 205,
Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
Others reported in 2014 (1) ADJ 215 and
Shaukat Hussain Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2019 (7) ADJ 429.

9. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the State has
vehemently submitted that enquiry was
conducted in an impartial manner and after
considering the reply submitted by the
petitioner, the District Magistrate has found
the
petitioner
guilty
of
financial
misappropriation of the funds in carrying
out the development work and therefore, no
illegality has been committed and the
principles of natural justice has been
complied with before passing the order
impugned as the show case notice was also
issued by the District Magistrate to the
petitioner to explain the allegations as
made in the show cause notice.

10. A plain reading of the Rules
indicates that the Legislature has given
appropriate
safeguards
to
check
the
arbitrary use of power by the authorities.
The specific provision has been given in
Rule 6 for inquiry.
11. In case of Quadri Begum Vs.
State of U.P. And Others (supra) this
Court in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 has held as
under:-

 "6. In the present case, on the
basis of the record it appears that neither
the inquiry Officer, i.e., the Executive
Engineer nor the District Magistrate
concerned,
had
complied
with
the
provisions
given
in
the
Rules.
The
provisions contained in the Rules are
statutory in nature and while holding a
person guilty of misconduct it shall be
incumbent upon the authorities to follow
the provisions in letter and spirit.

 7. The Pradhans who are elected
and chosen by the people, should not be
treated with undue hardship. In the present
case, the false implication cannot be ruled
out. The Rules contain detailed procedure
with regard to holding of inquiry and for
the submission of report by the Inquiry
Officer. The principles of natural Justice is
the part and parcel of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Noncompliance of the Rules
renders the inquiry report as well as the
removal order illegal. The provisions
contained in the Rules are mandatory in
nature and should be adhered by the
authorities while proceeding with the
inquiry. The attention has not been invited
towards any material on record by the
respondents Counsel which may point out
that Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules have been
followed in the inquiry proceedings. It is
settled proposition of law that in case the
authorities want to do anything, then that
should be in the manner provided by the
Act or Statute (Rules) and not otherwise
vide, Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor
MANU/PR/0119/1936: AIR 1936 PC 253;
Deep
Chand
v.
State
of
Rajasthar
MANU/SC/0118/1961: AIR 1961 SC 1527;
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi
Devi and Ors. MANU/SC/0389/1962: AIR
1963 SC 1077; State of U.P. v. Singhara
Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0082/1963: AIR
1964 SC 358; Barium Chemicals Ltd. v
Company
Law
Board
MANU/SC/0037/1966: AIR 1967 SC 295
Para 34; Chandra Kishor Jha v. Mahavir
Prasad and Ors. MANU/SC/0594/1999:
1999 (8) SCC 266; Delhi Administration v.
Gurdip
Singh
Uban
and
Ors.
MANU/SC/0515/2000: 2000 (7) SCC 296;
Dhananjay Reddy v. State of Karnataka
MANU/SC/0168/2001: AIR 2001 SC 1512;
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v.
Anjum
M.
H.
Ghaswala
and
Ors.
MANU/SC/0662/2001: 2002 (1) SCC 633;
Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.PAIR
2004 SC 486 and Ramphal Kundu v. Kamal
Sharma MANU/SC/0059/2004: AIR 2004
SC 1657. In the present case, at the face of
record, the procedure given in the Rules
(supra) have not been followed. The writ
petition deserves to be allowed."

12. In case of Mahendra Singh
Vs. State of U.P. And Others (supra), this
Court in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 has held
as under:-

 "3. The Court finds from a
perusal of the inquiry report that no charge
sheet was served upon the petitioner as per
Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997, which
stipulates that the inquiry officer is
required to draw up the substance of the
imputation or the imputation into different
and distinct articles of charge and
statement of the imputation in support of
each article of the charge and list of the
documents, list of the witnesses etc., which
are relied upon are required to be
indicated. Such charges are required to be
served upon the Pradhan and, upon receipt
of the evidence, the inquiry officer is
required to conduct an oral inquiry into
such charges, which are denied by the
Pradhan. Witnesses are required to be
examined and opportunity is required to be
given
for
cross-examination
of
the
witnesses. A date, time and place is
required to be fixed, which in the instant
case has been given a go bye.

 4. The inquiry officer has not
conducted the inquiry as per Rule 6 of the
Rules and has proceeded in his own
cavalier fashion conducting an ex-parte
inquiry and submitting a report holding
that the charges levelled as per the
preliminary inquiry stood proved. The
Court is of the opinion, that the inquiry
report submitted is in gross violation of the
provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997.

 5. Consequently, the inquiry
report cannot be sustained and the order of
removal pursuant to the inquiry report is
also erroneous and cannot be sustained.
The impugned order is quashed."

13. In case of Pushpa Vs. State of
U.P. and Others (supra), this Court in
paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 7 has held as
under:-

 "5. A final inquiry is required to
be conducted in accordance with the
procedure contemplated under Rule 6 of
the Rules of 1997 and thereafter a report is
required to be submitted under Rule 7 of
the
Rules
of
1997.
The
procedure
contemplated under Rule 6 is that the
inquiry officer shall draw the articles of
charges and the statements of imputation
and serve such articles of charges along
with the statements and relevant documents
in support of such statements and the
charges to the delinquent, who in the
instant case is the Pradhan. Specific
10 All. Smt. Sangeeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
257
charges are required to be framed by the
inquiry officer, so that the Pradhan can
give a proper reply to each of the charges.
The procedure contemplated indicates, that
where the charge is denied by the Pradhan,
the inquiry officer is required to conduct an
inquiry by taking oral and documentary
evidence after giving an opportunity to the
Pradhan to cross-examine such witnesses
and only thereafter the inquiry officer is
required to submit an inquiry report, which
would contain the articles of charge and
the statement of the imputation, the defence
of the Pradhan and the assessment of the
evidence in respect of each articles of
charge and thereafter the findings on each
article of charge and the reasons thereof.

 6. In the instant case, the inquiry
officer has done nothing as per the
procedure provided under Rule 6 of the
Rules of 1997. He has neither framed the
charge nor the statement of the imputation
nor the list of documents or the list of
witnesses that was to be relied upon by the
prosecution. All that the inquiry officer has
done is to hold an inquiry which is nothing
but a preliminary enquiry and is not an
enquiry contemplated under Rule 6 of the
Rules of 1997. The Court finds from a
perusal of the record that pursuant to the
submission of the report, a show cause
notice dated 26.7.2013 was issued by the
District Magistrate, which contained the
charges and upon receipt of the reply a
final order has been passed. The Court
finds that the procedure adopted was
patently illegal. The charges so framed by
the District Magistrate were not proved nor
was the inquiry held in accordance with
Rule 6 of the Rules of 1976. The entire
exercise was wholly illegal and against the
clear provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules of
1997. The inquiry report was in violation of
the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of
1997.

 7. Since no charges were framed
against the petitioner nor any inquiry was
made in accordance with Rule 6 of the
Rules of 1997, which is a mandatory
requirement, the impugned order dated
8.10.2013 removing the petitioner under
Section 95(1)(g) of the Act was wholly
illegal and in violation of the principles of
natural justice. The impugned order cannot
be sustained and is quashed."

14. In case of Mukesh Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. and others (supra) this Court
in paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 has held as
under:-

 "4. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties and having perused
the impugned order as well as the enquiry
report, which has been filed by respondent
no.7 in his counter affidavit, the Court finds
that the impugned order cannot be
sustained.

 5. An elaborate procedure has
been prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules.
Rule 6(2) of the Rules clearly indicates that
the Enquiry Officer shall draw the
substance of the imputations into definite
and distinct articles of charge and that a
statement of the imputations in support of
each article of charge, shall also be drawn
up, which shall contain statement of all
relevant facts and the list of documents and
list of witnesses and which are all required
to be indicated and supplied to the
Pradhan. The procedure thereafter as
provided under Rule 6 of the Rules is
required to be followed.

 6. Without going into the details,
the Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted a five line report and held that
the
imputations
mentioned
in
the
preliminary enquiry was inquired and the
charges have been found to be true. The
Court is of the opinion that the Enquiry
Officer has not even read the procedure,
which he is required to follow under Rule 6
of the Rules. A very shoddy and careless
enquiry has been done by the Enquiry
Officer and, on that basis, a Pradhan, who
has been given a constitutional status has
been removed. No charge was framed by
the Enquiry Officer nor any statement of
imputation was made nor list of documents
or list of witnesses were indicated. Since no
charge has been framed, the question of
such charge been proved does not arise .

 7. In the light of the aforesaid, the
Court finds that the impugned order cannot
be sustained and is quashed. The writ
petition is allowed."

15. In case of Sher Ali Vs. State
of U.P. and others (supra), this Court in
paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 15 has held as
under:-

 "12. From a perusal of Rule 6 of
the Rules of 1997, it is clear that a detailed
procedure has been envisaged for holding
an
enquiry.
This
procedure
is
not
applicable while holding a preliminary
enquiry under Rule 4, and consequently, a
definite charge has to be framed under
Rule 6. The documents relied upon by the
prosecution has to be made known and
specified in the charge sheet. The charge is
required to be proved against the charged
person. It is a full fledged enquiry, which is
required to be followed precisely in the
manner, in which it has been envisaged
under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997. A
preliminary enquiry does not envisage this
procedure under Rule 4, and therefore, the
respondents committed a manifest error in
holding that since a preliminary enquiry
was conducted, there was no need to hold a
final enquiry with regard to the same
charges.

 13. In the light of the aforesaid,
the Court finds from a perusal of the
impugned order that the respondents did
not issue any chargesheet to the petitioner
nor conducted an enquiry as per Rule 6 of
the Rules of 1997. Consequently, the
enquiry report and the orders passed
pursuant thereto are patently erroneous in
gross violation of the procedure and Article
14 of the Constitution, which cannot be
sustained.

 15. In the light of the aforesaid,
the impugned order cannot be sustained
and is quashed. The writ petition no. 35371
of 2013 is allowed."

16. The same view has been taken
by this Court in case of Shaukat Hussain
Vs. State of U.P.(supra).

17. I have perused the enquiry
report as well as the order passed by the
District Magistrate dated 26.07.2024 and I
am of the opinion that though a spot
inspection was made by the Enquiry
Officers
appointed
by
the
District
Magistrate but the enquiry was not
conducted in accordance with provisions of
Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1997 as there
is no whisper of even issuing charge sheet,
calling for an explanation from the
petitioner,
recording
of
evidence
of
witnesses and fixing date and time for
enquiry in the impugned order and in the
enquiry report.

18. Democracy in our country
begins at the grass root level with elections
10 All. Smt. Sangeeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
of Gram Pradhans in villages and the same
is the very foundation of our democracy.
No doubt, the District Magistrate has the
power to either cease the financial and
administrative
powers
or
oust
the
democratically
elected
Gram
Pradhan
under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, but the
said power is to be exercised only in
exceptional and extra ordinary cases, and
should be exercised with utmost caution
and not in a routine manner at the whims
and
fancies
of
the
administrative
authorities,
without
following
the
procedure prescribed under the Act and the
Rules. The present case is a glaring
example where action has been taken in
gross violation of the Act and the Rules of
1997
framed
thereunder
and
a
democratically elected Pradhan has been
wrongly kept away and deprived of his
elected office for several months.

19. Rules 6 and Rule 7 of Rules
1997 contemplates a formal enquiry as per
the provisions made in the aforesaid rules.
No order can be passed for removal of
Pradhan by the District Magistrate only on
the basis of a spot inspection made by the
Enquiry Officer without complying with
the provisions of Rule 6 and 7 of the Rules
1997.

20. Learned Standing Counsel
could not point out either from the order
impugned or from the enquiry report that
the enquiry was conducted in consonance
with the procedure as laid down in Rules
6 and 7 of Rules of 1997. Though,
learned Standing Counsel vehemently
contended that the Enquiry Officers have
gone on spot and verified the work,
which was undertaken by the petitioner
for which the complaint was made and
found
that
irregularities
have
been
committed by the petitioner. Learned
Standing Counsel submitted that no
useful purpose would be served in calling
for a counter affidavit. Order dated
26.07.2024 and report dated 14.03.2024
be set aside and liberty be given to the
District
Magistrate
to
initiate
fresh
enquiry in accordance with Rules of 1997
and pass a fresh order.

21. To this proposition, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
has
no
objection, therefore, with the consent of
parties, the writ petition is decided at
admission stage without calling for
counter affidavit.

22. Thus, in view of discussions
made above and stand of learned counsel
for the parties, I am of the considered
opinion that final enquiry conducted
against the petitioner is not in consonance
with the procedure prescribed in Rules 6
and 7 of the Rules of 1997 and therefore,
the enquiry is vitiated. No reliance can be
placed on the said enquiry for passing an
order
of
removal
by
the
District
Magistrate and consequently, the order
dated 26.07.2024 passed by the District
Magistrate, is quashed and the writ
petition is allowed.

23. However, it will be open for
the respondents to initiate a fresh enquiry
against the petitioner in consonance with
the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj
(Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and
Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. The
District Magistrate is directed to conduct an
enquiry afresh under Rule 6 of the Rules of
1997 after appointing a fresh enquiry
officer under Rule 5 of the said Rules. The
enquiry would be completed expeditiously,
preferably, within three months from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order. During this period, the three
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
member committee appointed by the
District
Magistrate
will
continue
to
discharge their functions.

----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 260
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-C No. 8666 of 2024
And
Writ-C No. 8680 of 2024

Bindu Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Sant Prasad Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Contents of the show-cause
notice - Purpose of serving of show-cause
notice is to make the noticee understand
the precise case set up against him, which
he has to meet. Show-cause notice must
contain the statement of imputations
detailing out the alleged breaches and
defaults he has committed, so that he gets
an opportunity to rebut the same. It is
equally important to mention as to what
would be the consequence if the noticee
does not satisfactorily meet the grounds
on which an action is proposed. A showcause notice should meet the following
two
requirements,
viz.:
(i)
The
material/grounds to be stated which,
according to the department, necessitates
an action; (ii) Particular penalty/action
which is proposed to be taken. (Para 13)
B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899- Section 47-A -
Show-cause notice - In the instant case,
two cases under Section 47-A of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, were instituted
on the basis of two similarly worded
notices dated 07.10.2022, stating that
sale deeds were executed in favour of the
petitioner and it had come to light that
there was a deficiency in payment of the
sale. Nothing further was stated in the
notices regarding the basis of satisfaction
that there was a deficiency in the payment
of stamp duty. The notices do not even
mention the amount of deficiency in the
payment of stamp duty or any other
particulars. Held - The show-cause notice
does not serve any purpose, as, in the
absence of the particulars in the notice,
the noticee cannot submit a proper reply
to the notice. (Para 14)
C. Stamp Duty - Recovery of deficient
stamp
duty
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, Rule
7(3)(c) - Collector may inspect the
property after due notice to parties to the
instrument. Report of any inspection
which
has
not
been
conducted
in
accordance with the provisions of Rule
7(3)(c) of the 1997 Rules cannot form the
basis of an order for recovery of deficient
stamp duty. (Para 16)
D. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Recovery of
deficiency in payment of registration fee -
There is no provision in the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 empowering the authorities to
order
recovery
of
any
deficiency
in
payment of registration fee, and in
absence of any statutory provision, the
authorities cannot pass any order for
recovery of deficiency of registration fee
in proceedings instituted under the Indian
Stamp Act. (Para 17)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
Gorkha Security Services Vs Govt. of NCT of
Delhi & ors. (2014) 9 SCC 105
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)