Allahabad HC Directs Conclusion of Section 95 Inquiry Against Prayagraj Gram Pradhan Within Four Months

The Allahabad High Court held that expiry of a Gram Pradhan's tenure does not extinguish proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 or her financial liability under Section 27 for fund misappropriation during tenure.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, disposed of a public interest litigation on 14 August 2026, directing the respondent authorities to conclude a pending disciplinary inquiry against the Gram Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat in Prayagraj within four months. The PIL, filed by Mahendra Kumar, alleged that the Gram Pradhan had misappropriated Gram Panchayat funds, including routing wages meant for labourers under various schemes into the bank account of her son. The court addressed a specific legal question that had emerged during proceedings: whether the end of the Pradhan's tenure — and a consequential government order directing outgoing pradhans to perform only administrative work — rendered the Section 95(1)(g) inquiry proceedings of no further consequence. The bench held it did not.

Allegations That Initiated the PIL

The writ petition was filed in 2024 on the basis of a report dated 21 June 2024 by the District Panchayat Raj Officer (D.P.R.O.), Prayagraj. That report identified eight discrepancies in the functioning of the Gram Panchayat and recommended that an FIR be lodged against respondent Nos. 7 and 9 — the latter being the Gram Pradhan — for defalcating Gram Panchayat funds.

The petitioner's case was that the Gram Pradhan abused her position in connection with development works. Most concretely, wages payable to labourers working under various schemes were transferred to the bank account of her son, Vipin Singh, to the tune of Rs. 11,83,000.

When the matter first came before the court on 21 November 2024, the bench directed the State to file instructions on what action had been taken on the D.P.R.O.'s recommendations.

The “Made Up Document” Finding

The instructions eventually produced by the Standing Counsel were accompanied by a second D.P.R.O. report dated 12 August 2024. That report claimed a fresh inquiry had been conducted into the same eight points and found everything in order, thereby concluding there was no necessity to lodge an FIR.

The court was not persuaded. By its order dated 4 February 2025, the bench observed that the inspection report of 7 May 2024 was specific, contained clear findings, and was supported by photographs. The subsequent report, also accompanied by photographs, appeared designed to neutralise the earlier one. The court characterised the later report as a made up document produced after post-hoc rectification of the defects identified in the earlier report, and it declined to accept it as displacing the original findings.

The court then directed the District Magistrate to order a fresh inquiry into the inspection report of 7 May 2024 and the D.P.R.O.'s communication of 21 June 2024, to be conducted by an officer of at least Sub-Divisional Officer rank, with a report to be produced before the court at the next hearing.

Fresh Inquiry Confirms Wrongdoing; Show Cause Notices Issued

On 18 April 2025, the Standing Counsel produced a report dated 17 April 2025 from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Prayagraj. That report found wrongdoing on the part of both the Gram Pradhan and the Gram Vikas Adhikari. The court then sought instructions from the District Magistrate on what action was proposed in light of the SDM's findings.

Instructions produced subsequently confirmed that on a fresh inquiry, respondent No. 9 and the then Secretary of the Gram Panchayat were found guilty. Show cause notices dated 14 May 2025 were issued to them.

By 26 August 2025, the court was informed that disciplinary action had been initiated against two Gram Vikas Adhikaris — Smt. Sugandha Shukla and Ms. Neha Kamle — while the matter against the former Secretary, Sudama Ram Gawde, was forwarded to the competent authority for disciplinary action. As for the Gram Pradhan, her financial powers were seized pending action under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

District Magistrate Misread the Single Judge's Order

Proceedings took a sharp turn at the hearing on 3 November 2025. Counsel for respondent No. 9 informed the court that the Section 95 order against the Gram Pradhan had been quashed by a learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 25303 of 2025 by order dated 1 August 2025, leaving it open for the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order.

When the court examined the instructions filed by the District Magistrate, it found that the instructions stated the order of 22 July 2025 had been “stayed” — when in fact it had been quashed. The Division Bench was direct in its response. It observed that the respondents, including the District Magistrate, had apparently not read the order of 1 August 2025. The bench noted that the Single Judge had expressly clarified the quashing would not restrain the District Magistrate from passing a fresh order. The court found the misreading was not without reasons, attributing it to reluctance to act against the Gram Pradhan, and stated such conduct could not be countenanced.

The bench also took note of a procedural irregularity: while the instructions purported to come from the District Magistrate, they were signed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, with a copy merely marked to the District Magistrate. The court directed the Standing Counsel to advise the District Magistrate to read court orders carefully and not rely on office clerks for that purpose.

When the matter returned on 7 January 2026, no fresh instructions had been filed despite two months having passed. The court directed that either instructions be provided by the next date (5 February 2026) or the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, shall remain personally present before the court.

Powers Seized a Second Time; Another Writ Filed

By the hearing on 9 July 2026, the court was informed that an order had been passed on 8 July 2026 seizing the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g) and appointing an Administrator, pursuant to a Government Order dated 29 May 2026. This was the second time such an order had been passed against respondent No. 9.

The Gram Pradhan filed another writ petition — Writ-C No. 28087 of 2026 — challenging the order dated 8 July 2026. A Single Judge disposed of that petition on 23 July 2026, observing that since the Pradhan's present tenure had already come to an end, the order seizing her financial and administrative powers had “no legal consequence.” The Single Judge also noted Government Orders dated 25 May 2026 and 29 May 2026 requiring outgoing pradhans to perform only administrative work until fresh elections, and granted the petitioner liberty to raise all objections in the pending Section 95(1)(g) inquiry.

The Division Bench's Reasoning on Tenure Expiry and Continuing Liability

At the final hearing on 14 August 2026, counsel for respondent No. 9 argued that the order of 23 July 2026 in Writ-C No. 28087 of 2026 rendered the Section 95(1)(g) proceedings of no further consequence since her tenure had ended. The Division Bench rejected this reading.

The bench referred to Section 95(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which provides that a person removed under sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (g) of sub-section (1) shall not be entitled to be re-elected or re-appointed to any office under the Act for five years, or such lesser period as the State Government may order. The court observed that the possibility of removal and its attendant five-year disqualification from re-election or re-appointment remained a live consequence of the inquiry, irrespective of the current tenure having expired.

The bench also referred to Section 27 of the Act, which imposes a surcharge liability on every Pradhan for any loss, waste, or misapplication of Gram Panchayat money or property that is a direct consequence of the Pradhan's neglect or misconduct during tenure. The prescribed authority is required to fix the amount of surcharge, certify it to the Collector, and the Collector is to realise it as an arrear of land revenue. The court pointed out that this financial liability survives the end of tenure and is not eliminated by the appointment of an Administrator or any other reason that causes a person to cease to hold the office.

On the effect of the Single Judge's order of 23 July 2026, the Division Bench was careful. It was not hearing an appeal against that order. However, it held that the observation in the second paragraph of that order — that the seized powers had “no legal consequence” given the end of tenure — shall not come in the way of the respondents in taking the Section 95(1)(g) proceedings to their logical end. The liberty granted to respondent No. 9 to raise objections was to be exercised in light of the statutory provisions of Sections 27 and 95, and not read in isolation.

The bench further held that the order dated 8 July 2026 passed under Section 95(1)(g) operates against the person and not merely the office. Since the inquiry initiated under that order continues, respondent No. 9 cannot exercise financial and administrative powers during its pendency, regardless of the Government Orders governing outgoing pradhans.

Outcome

The Division Bench disposed of PIL No. 2208 of 2024 with a direction to the respondents to conclude the pending inquiry against respondent No. 9 in furtherance of the order dated 8 July 2026, in accordance with law, within four months from 14 August 2026. The petitioner's submission that the amount defalcated by the Gram Pradhan in collusion with her son had not been recovered remained noted on record, with the inquiry directed to be taken to its logical end.