Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21690 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3512 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Rekha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. An amendment application filed today in Court is taken on record. 3. The application is allowed. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary amendments during the course of the date. 5. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 22.03.2025 as amended vide order dated 09.04.2025, whereby the financial and administrate power of the petitioner has been ceased in exercise of power conferred under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 6. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Gram Pradhan and subsequently on the basis of some complaint made, a spot inspection was carried out and a report was submitted by the Commissioner, Ambedkar Nagar and on the basis of the said, a preliminary inquiry report, notices were issued to the petitioner. 7. The order impugned records that on the basis of the preliminary inquiry report, the petitioner was found to be guilty on four counts as specified in the order. All the allegations pertain to the act that under The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (in short "the MGNREGA"). 8. Earlier a similar order was passed, against which, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.1704 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 28.02.2025 remanding the matter for passing fresh order after considering the defence of the petitioner. In terms of the said remand, the present order has been passed. It has been observed in the said order that in the defence, it has been stated that on account of start of rainy season, the labours were not available, as such, after informing the officer concerned, the log of MGNREGA workers were declared zero and no amounts were paid for the said period. The said submission of the Counsel for the petitioner was considered as admission. It was also observed that with a view to siphon of the Government funds, the work was got done with the help of JCB and less labourers were involved and thus to that extent the petitioner was liable. 9. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the prescriptions contained in Rule 49 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, the funds of the Gram Pradhan are satisfied. There are no allegation with regard to the fund of Gram Pradhan in respect of the duties enforced. Rule 47 is as under: "47. Duties of the Pradhan of Gaon Panchayat. Unless prevented by reasonable cause, it shall be the duty of the Pradhan- (a)(i) to convene and preside at all meetings of the Gaon Sabha and the Gaon Panchayat, and (ii) to control the transaction of business at the meetings and preserve order; (b) to watch over the finance and superintend the executive administration of the Gaon Panchayat and bring to its notice any defect therein, (c) to superintend and control the establishment maintained by the Gaon Panchayat; (d) to carry out the resolution of the Gaon Panchayat; (e) to arrange for the maintenance of the various registers provided under the rules and to carry on all correspondence on behalf of the Gaon Panchayat and the Gaon Sabha; (f) to arrange for the execution of various works for the custody of the property of the Gaon Panchayat and for the assessment and collection of taxes, rates and fees imposed by the Gaon Panchayat; (g) to file civil case and launch prosecution on behalf of the Gaon Panchayat and the Gaon Sabha; and (h) to perform such other duties as are required of or imposed on him by or under the Act or any other law." 10. He thus argues that even in the said order, there is no allegation of financial and administrative lapses on the part of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan and thus invoking the powers under Section 9(1)(g) are wholly unjustified. 11. The learned Standing Counsel, based upon the instructions states that in terms of the MGNREGA Act, 2005, a duty has been cast upon the Gaon Sabha to ensure the compliance of the benefits that flow by virtue of the scheme framed under the said Act and the petitioner being Gram Pradhan was guilty of not following the intent and purpose of the scheme as framed under the MGNREGA Act and thus the order is justified. 12. Considering the submission made at the bar, prima facie, from the perusal of the order impugned, there is no infraction alleged or established in relation to the duties of the Gram Pradhan as specified in Rule 47. It is cleared that the power of ceasing financial and administrative powers as conferred on the Gram Pradhan is a serious action and has to be interpreted strictly. In the failure of there being any infraction alleged in relation to the duties as prescribed, the order could not have been passed in a callous manner as has been done by means of the impugned order. The impugned order is contrary to the intent and purpose of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 95(1)(g) read with Rule 47, as such, the impugned order dated 22.03.2025 as amended vide order dated 09.04.2025 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. 13. The writ petition is allowed. 14. The financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan shall stand restored forthwith. 15. The final inquiry shall be concluded in accordance with law. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench