Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 19 March, 2025
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39097 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7870 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.S. Pandey,Kartikey Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti/ Respondent No. 2 by which the surcharge has been imposed upon the petitioner who is elected Gram Pradhan is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the surcharge can be levied only by the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats. It is further argued that only role which is ascribed to the District Magistrate under Rule 256 is of forwarding any explanation that may be called for by the Chief Audit Officer from either the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or an Officer of the Gram Panchayat.
3. In this view of the matter, counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 22445 of 2018 (Nagendra Pratap Narain Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). Operative portion of which reads as follows:-
"From a bare perusal of these provisions, it is evident that a surcharge can be levied only by the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats. The only role which is ascribed to the District Magistrate under Rule 256 is of forwarding any explanation that may be called for by the Chief Audit Officer from either the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or an officer of the Gram Panchayat.
In light of this undisputed position, it is manifest that the District Magistrate is clothed with no authority to impose a surcharge and that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, this writ petition shall stand allowed. The order dated 19 September 2018 is hereby quashed. It is further provided that in case the Chief Audit Officer forms the opinion that circumstances warrant initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 27 against the petitioners, he shall proceed in the matter only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners including inviting their representations in respect of initiation of proceedings itself since it is contended on their behalf that on identical charges they already stand exonerated and therefore the provisions of Section 27 cannot be invoked."
4. Apart from the same he also placed reliance upon the the judgment and order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 5335 of 2023 (Smt. Pinki Devi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) as well as Division Bench Judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 16.12.2022 in Writ C No. 28230 of 2022 (Dinesh Kumar and 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others).
5. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, writ petition shall stand allowed. The order dated 07th November, 2024 is hereby quashed. It is further provided that in case the Chief Audit Officer forms the opinion that circumstances warrant initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 27 against the petitioners, he shall proceed in the matter only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner including inviting his representation in respect of initiation of proceedings itself since it is contended on his behalf that on identical charges he already stand exonerated and therefore the provisions of Section 27 cannot be invoked.
Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Swati