Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28156 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4532 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Gaud @ Suresh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj, Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The copy of instruction produced by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 07.04.2025 whereby the financial and the administrative powers of the petitioner have been seized in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act read with the relevant rules. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that a complaint was made against the petitioner on 28.01.2024, which was not even accompanied by an affidavit as is prescribed in Rule 3 of the Removal Rules, however, an enquiry was got done and in the said enquiry, nothing was found against the petitioner, as such under political pressure, a second enquiry was got done and thereafter on 18.10.2024 the petitioner was served with a show cause notice alleging as many as nine infractions, based upon which, the proceedings were proposed to be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to all the infractions through his reply dated 18.10.2024. Para-wise reply was given to all the allegations leveled. After the reply was submitted, the order dated 07.04.2025 came to be passed. In the said order, it is recorded that complaint was made with regard to certain infractions and a preliminary report was also sought, however, while dealing with the objections filed by the petitioner, it was observed that the petitioner had not provided any list and no para-wise reply was given to the allegations leveled, as such, the submission was rejected. 5. Learned Standing Counsel while defending the action of the respondent states that only one enquiry was held, in which prima facie allegation against the petitioner was found to be correct, however, he states that thereafter, the order impugned came to be passed. 6. The said exercise of power is contrary to the mandate of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2011 (1) ALJ; 694, it is incumbent upon the District Magistrate to consider the defence as may be pleaded by the Gram Pradhan before proceeding to exercise under Section 95(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act. In the order impugned there appears to be no consideration of defence, the same is clearly without any application of mind, hence cannot be sustained, as such the same is quashed. The respondent may pass fresh order, if so advised, in accordance with law. The financial and administrative powers of the petitioner shall be restored forthwith. 7. The writ petition is finally disposed of in terms of the above. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench