Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28990 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4563 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayatiraj Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nouphil Ahmad,Syed Ahmad Jamal 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 challenging an order dated 30.04.2025, whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan have been ceased in exercise of powers Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 3. The facts, in brief, are that on account of complaint made against the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was got conducted and subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which is contained in Annexure No.2 to the petition. In terms of the show cause notice, the infractions alleged against the petitioner were contained in charge Nos.5 to 12. In respect of the said show cause notice and charges levelled therein, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the charges through his reply dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure No.4). After consideration of the reply, the reply was sent by the District Magistrate for its comments to the District Development Officer, Unnao, who submitted his report on the reply submitted by the petitioner on 24.09.2024. The District Development Officer gave also another report on 18.03.2025. On the basis of the said reports, the order impugned came to be passed ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of the charge No.5, the allegations were that instead of paying the amount to the workers, the amounts were withdrawn and were paid in cash, which falls in violation of the Government Order dated 24.07.2020. To the said charge, the petitioner had replied that on account the situations demanded, the amounts were withdrawn in cash and were paid to the workers and the affidavits of the said workers were also attached with the reply of the petitioner. With regard to the charge Nos.6 to 12, learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to state that in all the said charges, the amounts spent are less than the amount sanctioned and it has already been found that there was a deviation in the amounts. The said according to learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot amount to an infraction, in relation to the duties of the Gram Pradhan as prescribed under Rule 47 of the U.P. Panchayat Rules so as to attract the extreme punishment of the removal of the financial and administrative powers. 5. In the light of the averments in the petition, learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions. He has produced the instructions, which are taken on record. 6. In terms of the said instructions, it is evident that on the reply submitted by the petitioner, two reports were called, which are foundation for passing of the order dated 30.04.2025. On perusal of the order, it is clear that the District Magistrate, who is required to apply his mind in the light of the defence taken by the petitioner, appears to be missing. The order has been passed on the foundation of the two reports, which were sought after the filing of the reply by the petitioner denying the charges. The said procedure is against the procedure prescribed under the UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. 7. In the absence of any application of mind by the District Magistrate considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained. As the same is contrary to the mandate of Full Bench judgement in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2010(10) ADJ(1). 8. Finding the order dated 30.4.2025 is bereft of any application of mind by the District Magistrate, the same is quashed. Consequently financial and administrative powers of the petitioner shall stand restored forthwith. 9. However, the respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law. It is further stated that the final inquiry may also be concluded, if so advised, in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of above. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 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