The Allahabad High Court has held that a pending inquiry under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 against a Gram Pradhan cannot be treated as infructuous, or allowed to be stalled, merely because her tenure in office has since come to an end.

The Court held that such proceedings must be carried to their logical conclusion, given the consequences that survive the end of tenure under Section 95(2) and Section 27 of the Act.

Section 95(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 bars a person removed under the relevant clause of Section 95(1) from being re-elected or re-appointed to any office under the Act for five years, or such lesser period as the State Government may direct.

Section 27 makes a Pradhan personally liable to a 'surcharge', a financial liability, for loss, waste or misapplication of Gram Panchayat funds caused by his or her neglect or misconduct in office; that liability survives for ten years from the loss, or five years from the date the person ceases to hold office, whichever is later.

The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held

“Apparently, Section 27 imposes a financial liability upon the erstwhile Pradhan also and the mere fact that a person does not remain a Pradhan, for any reason including appointment of Administrator by the State Government, would not vanish/eliminate his/her liability arising out of acts done by him/her during his/her tenure and proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act would not be given a go-by nor the same can be ignored.”

The petition in public interest was filed in 2024 by Mahendra Kumar seeking action against respondent No. 9, the Gram Pradhan, and the then Gram Panchayat Secretary. It was alleged that the Pradhan had embezzled Gram Panchayat development funds and diverted labourers' wages payable under various schemes into the bank account of her son, Vipin Singh.

The allegations followed a report by the District Panchayat Raj Officer (D.P.R.O.), Prayagraj, which flagged eight discrepancies and recommended that an FIR be lodged for defalcation.

When the D.P.R.O. subsequently produced a report clearing the Pradhan on all eight points. The Court, by an order dated 04.02.2025, rejected it as a 'made-up document' prepared after the defects noted earlier had been rectified, noting that Rs. 11,83,000 in labourers' wages had been credited to the son's account without any clarification, and directed a fresh inquiry by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Prayagraj, reported wrongdoing by the Pradhan and the Gram Vikas Adhikari. Instructions produced in mid-2025 recorded that a further inquiry had found the Pradhan and the then Secretary guilty, and show cause notices were issued to them; her financial and administrative powers were seized under Section 95(1)(g) by an order dated 22.07.2025.

That order was quashed by a Single Judge in a separate writ petition, though the District Magistrate was left free to pass a fresh order. The Court subsequently found that the District Magistrate's office had misread this quashing as merely a stay of its own order, and directed compliance.

Further instructions indicated that a fresh inquiry had again found the charges against the Pradhan established, and show cause notices were issued the same day. Acting on this, the District Magistrate, by an order dated 08.07.2026, again seized her financial and administrative powers and appointed an Administrator, pursuant to a Government Order dated 29.05.2026.

The Pradhan challenged this order in a separate writ petition (Writ-C No. 28087 of 2026). A Single Judge disposed of that petition observing that since her tenure as Pradhan had already ended, the seizure order now had 'no legal consequence,' while granting her liberty to raise all objections, including as to whether the Section 95(1)(g) inquiry could proceed at all, in the pending inquiry.

Before the Court, counsel for the petitioner submitted that no action had in fact been taken against the Pradhan and that the defalcated amount remained unrecovered.

The Standing Counsel submitted that the inquiry pursuant to the 08.07.2026 order was pending and would be taken to its logical end. Counsel for the Pradhan submitted that since the seizure order had already been held to be of no legal consequence, and she had been granted liberty to raise all objections in the inquiry, no further order was called for.

Examining the effect of the 23.07.2026 order in Writ-C No. 28087 of 2026, the Court held

“…we are of the considered opinion that the observations made in second paragraph of the order dated 23.07.2026 passed in Writ – C No. 28087 of 2026 shall not come in the way of the respondents in taking the proceedings in furtherance of order dated 08.07.2026 to their logical end and the liberty granted in the said order to respondent No. 9 to raise objections in the pending inquiry, would have to be seen in light of above referred statutory provisions and not in isolation.”

The Court clarified that the seizure order attaches to the Pradhan personally, and her being succeeded by an Administrator on the expiry of her tenure does not, by itself, affect the pendency of the inquiry against her.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to conclude the pending Section 95(1)(g) inquiry against the Pradhan, in furtherance of the order dated 08.07.2026, within four months.

Case Title: Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 8 others

Click Here To Read/Download Order