Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27353 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4308 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shrimati Rajpati Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Singh Vishen,Nishant Pandey,Raja Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Raj Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.04.2025 whereby financial and administrative power of the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan has been seized in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that at the behest of respondent no.5, a complaint was made on account of personal enmity in between the petitioner and respondent no.5. According to him, the complaint was malafide and to settle the scores on account of dispute in between the petitioner and respondent no.5, however, based upon the application filed by respondent no.5, an order came to be passed by DPRO for a preliminary inquiry. Based upon the said, the preliminary inquiry was conducted and thereafter, a show cause notice dated 06.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner which is contained on Annexure - 6. It was alleged that on the basis of the inquiry report dated 04.02.2025 it was observed that on 28.03.2022, an amount of Rs.73,721/- was withdrawn and at the time of the inspection/preliminary inquiry, villagers had informed that the Chabutra in question was constructed since long and was not constructed in the recent past. It was also observed in the preliminary inquiry report that on prima-facie eye estimation the Chabutra appeared to be old and thus, a view was formed that the amount of Rs.73,721/- withdrawn appeared to be prima-facie wrongly withdrawn for which a prima-facie view was expressed that the petitioner was guilty. It was also observed that near the Chabutra, the work of interlocking appeared to be unsatisfactory for which also the petitioner was found to be prima- facie guilty. Thus, the petitioner was asked to show-cause as to why action may not be taken for not providing the documents, creating ruckus at the time of preliminary inquiry, not cooperating with the inquiry, misuse of the funds of Rs.73,721/- and not following the duties which are prescribed. The petitioner was granted 15 days' time to file a reply to the allegations as contained in the show- cause notice dated 06.03.2025. 4. The impugned order records that as the petitioner did not file any reply, the order has been passed. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice was never served upon the petitioner, as such, the petitioner could not file a reply. It is further argued that the complaint was initiated at the behest of a person with whom the petitioner had personal enmity and litigation was also going on. It is further argued that the manner in which the impugned order has been passed does not reflect any application of mind by the District Magistrate which is a sine qua non for ceasing the powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, which is a very major step as an elected representative has been denuded of his powers and without such powers it amounts to rendering the petitioner powerless. 6. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Paras Jain v. State of U.P. and Ors.; 2016 (1) ADJ 1 as well as in the judgment in the case of Shamim v. State of U.P. & Ors.; AIR 2018 All 196. 7. On the factual aspect, learned counsel for the petitioner has annexed the copy of the Chabutra and justifies that the same was got constructed and the funds were not misappropriated. The order impugned on record indicates that the District Magistrate was prima-facie satisfied with the report and as the petitioner had not given any reply, a presumption was drawn that the said charges were acceptable to the petitioner. It is also transpired that the actual show-cause notice was served on the petitioner on 26.03.2025, although, it is not clear as to whom the notice was served, no finding can be given on that count. 8. Considering the impugned order, prima-facie, apart from observing that in the absence of any reply there was a presumption that the petitioner had accepted the charges against her, no application of mind appears to have been recorded in the impugned order, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has been denuded of a valuable right of administrative and financial power without even hearing her, the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 cannot be sustained and is quashed. 9. It is directed that the respondent would be at liberty to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the submission of the petitioner, if any. 10. It is further provided that the petitioner shall file a reply to the allegations contained in the show-cause notice within a period of one week from today. No fresh notice need to be served upon the petitioner. 11. It is further made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to adduce any evidence that the petitioner intends to adduce in respect of her objection. 12. After the reply is submitted, the respondent would be at liberty to pass a fresh order, if so advised, in accordance with law. 13. The administrative and financial powers of the petitioner stand restored forthwith till any fresh orders are passed. 14. Present petition stands allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench