'Non-Application Of Mind': Allahabad High Court Summons Hardoi DM Over Inquiry To Remove Ex-Pradhan Whose Term Expired Over 5 Yrs Ago

The Allahabad High Court has summoned the District Magistrate, Hardoi, Anunaya Jha, to explain why an inquiry committee was constituted by him to conduct proceedings for the removal of a Gram Pradhan 6 years after his term expired.

A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the direction while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning the inquiry proceedings against the former Gram Pradhan.

The Court noted that the Gram Pradhan against whom the proceedings were being conducted had ceased to hold office on December 25, 2020. Despite this, the District Magistrate, Hardoi, constituted an Inquiry Committee on May 16, 2026, to conduct the final inquiry against him.

The Court questioned the very basis of continuing proceedings under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Sanchalaks and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, which are referable to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

The Bench observed thus:

"We fail to understand as to how and for what purpose the proceedings are being held under the Rules of 1997, which are referable to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, for removal of the Pradhan, when the term of the Pradhan against whom these proceedings are being held, has already expired".

The Court noted that it had categorically asked the D.P.R.O. as to under which provisions these proceedings were being held. The officer stated that the proceedings were under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act read with the 1997 Rules.

The Bench further pointed out that even the District Magistrate's May 16 order appointing the Inquiry Committee recorded that the Gram Pradhan's term had expired.

"We are surprised as to how the District Magistrate has constituted such inquiry, which can only be held for the purpose of removal of Pradhan, when the person is no longer the Pradhan".

The Court went on to observe that the manner in which the proceedings were initiated indicated a lack of application of mind by the concerned authorities.

"It appears all the concerned officers have acted without application of any mind to the facts on the file", the bench remarked.

The Court also clarified that if the allegations concerned misappropriation, embezzlement, or recovery from the former Gram Pradhan, the appropriate proceedings would be under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, read with the corresponding Rules.

Justice Roy-led bench observed thus:

"If there is any misappropriation or embezzlement or any recovery is to be made from the Gram Pradhan then the proceedings would be held under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with the corresponding rules".

The Bench also took note of the fact that the proceedings had consumed judicial time despite the apparent issue regarding the former Pradhan's expired tenure.

The bench added that it proposed to impose "further cost for such non-application of mind and wasting the time of the Court, with such proceedings instead of proceeding, if there is a cause, under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947".

The Court accordingly directed the District Magistrate, Hardoi, to appear personally and explain how and for what purpose he had constituted the Inquiry Committee.

The BSA, Hardoi, who was present before the Court, was not required to appear again unless specifically called for. The matter has been directed to be listed on September 3, 2026