Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17914 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2956 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nisha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.B.S. Rathaur,Desh Raj Singh Yadav,Sachin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 12.03.2025, whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner acting as a Gram Pradhan have been ceased in exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 17.09.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, calling upon the petitioner to give a reply in respect of the alleged irregularities committed by him as a Gram Pradhan. The petitioner gave his reply on 16.10.2024 alleging that the averments contained in the show cause notice were vague and thus she was not in position to give any reply. Subsequently, after the submission of the reply on 16.10.2024, it appears that a fresh inquiry was got conducted and a report to that extent was submitted on 09.12.2024. Thereafter, based upon the said two reports, the petitioner was once again called for to give a reply. The said notice was sent by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitapur. As the petitioner did not file a reply to the same, the order impugned came to be passed on 12.03.2025. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Panchayat Raj Officer did not have any jurisdiction to issue the notice as has been done and thus, the entire proceedings, based upon the said show cause notice, are without jurisdiction. 5. He draws my attention to the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act read with the Removal of Pradhan Rules to argue that the power of removal as prescribed in the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act makes it mandatory that the said powers can be exercised by the State Government. It is admitted that the State Government has relegated the powers to be exercised by the District Magistrate. In the light of the said, it is argued that it is only the State Government or its delegate, the District Magistrate, who can take action and issue a show cause notice and the District Panchayat Raj Officer is not an officer proper to issue a show cause notice. Thus, the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, based upon the instructions, argues that the perusal of the show cause notice bearing the signature of the District Panchayat Raj Officer sent on 21.12.2024 (Annexure No.9) would clearly reveal that the District Panchayat Raj Officer was only a communicating authority and had communicated the facts with regard to the issuance of earlier show cause notice on 17.09.2024 by the District Magistrate. The reply submitted by the petitioner on 16.10.2024 and thereafter the two preliminary inquiries were referred to and thus, according to him, it was a mere communication and once the petitioner did not submit any reply before the District Magistrate, in furtherance to the said communication, the order impugned was rightly passed. More so, when the petitioner had not even denied the allegations. 7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the provisions contained under the Act, the prima facie satisfaction for passing the orders under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act are that of the District Magistrate, which has not been done in the present case. 8. The said reply is refuted by learned Standing Counsel on the ground that in the impugned order, the District Magistrate has rightly recorded that prima facie satisfaction existed for exercise of the said powers. 9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, in terms of the scheme contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the powers of removal of Pradhan are vested by virtue of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act and the said powers can be exercised after holding the inquiries as prescribed under the Rules known as UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. He argues that in the process initiated for removal, which can be done in terms of the mandate of the Act and applicable Rules, the State Government is vested with the powers under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act to cease the financial and administrative powers, pending inquiries. The provisions of exercise of powers of removal in terms of the Act and the Rules prescribes that the State Government, through its delegate, the District Magistrate can exercise the powers of removal as also the interim powers prescribed under Proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act. 10. In the present case, the show cause notice has been issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer as is evident from the signature. The contention of learned Standing Counsel that it was mere communication and the order has been passed by the District Magistrate, according to the opinion of this Court would not suffice the requirement as prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The underline objective of passing a grave order of ceasing the financial and administrative powers, necessarily include the power of forming an opinion, at both the stages justifying the exercise of powers, firstly at the time of issuance of notice and secondly at the time of passing of the order. A communication through any person, who is not authorized under the Act and the Rules would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement. 11. Thus, on the said ground alone, the order impugned dated 12.03.2025 is quashed. The District Magistrate would be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice and to pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with law, if so advised and the petitioner would have the right to defend in case, any proceedings are initiated, in accordance with law. The financial and administrative powers of the petitioner stand restored. 12. The petition is disposed of in terms of above. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench