1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40591 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6349 of 2025 Petitioner :- Munendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today in taken on record. The instructions of the learned Standing Counsel is also taken on record. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.06.2025, whereby the financial and administrative power of the petitioner, who is a Gram Pradhan, have been seized by the District Magistrate, District Hardoi in exercise of powers under Section 95(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is an elected Gram Pradhan and was elected in the year 2021. On the basis of a complaint made, the petitioner, as well as the secretary of the Panchayat were served a show cause notice dated 30.04.2025, in which, on the basis of a complaint made, eleven allegations were lavelled. The petitioner, as well as the secretary, were called upon to file their reply in view of the allegations levelled, within a period of 15 days. It also appears from the record that the Secretary gave a detailed reply to the allegations levelled. However, the petitioner filed a reply denying the allegations. In light of the objections filed, as referred above, the impugned order came to be passed, seizing the financial and administrative powers pending inquiry. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order does not record any infraction against the petitioner, who is a Gram Pradhan, in relation to the duties as prescribed under Rule 47 of the Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 which prescrises the nature of duties to be performed by the Gram Pradhan and thus he submits that the order is bad in law. He further argues that, even otherwise, in the impugned order, no infractions could be alleged as against the 2 petitioner’s working as a Gram Pradhan, and thus, on that count also, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. Learned standing counsel, based upon the instructions received, which are taken on record, argues that, in reply to the show cause notice as given to the petitioner and contained in annexure No.3, no reply was submitted by the petitioner; a mere bald denial was done through his reply. He argues that no documents whatsoever were produced in support of his contention, and thus, there being no reply, the impugned order came to be passed, which is justified. He argues that the inquiry, as contemplated, has not yet taken place and would be completed within the time as prescribed in the statute. In light of the said arguments, he argues that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions at the Bar, perusal of the writ petition, the supplementary affidavit as well as the written instructions of learned Standing Counsel, clearly transpires that as many as eleven allegations were levelled. With regard to allegation number one, it was stated that in the photo, which was affixed on the toilets meant for physically challenged people, there was no signature, the papers were not filled properly and the vouchers did not indicate the date. The said charge was replied by the Secretary, stating that on account of errors, certain signatures were not there and the said defects were rectified. With regard to Charge No.2, It was alleged that the file was not produced for perusal in respect of three rooms, where the work of tiles was carried out. The said charge also pertains to maintenance of record by the Secretary and was replied by the Secretary. The third charge pertains to non-production of a file in respect of the work of laying tiles in a school was concerned. The said also pertains to non-production of the file, which too was replied by the Secretary. Charge No.4 itself mentioned that the work of laying the road was there; however, beyond that nothing was shown because it is specifically stated that for the said work, the Technical Assistant had to give a reply. It was also mentioned that the file was not produced, which is also the work of the Secretary. 3 With regard to Charge No. 5, again it was stated that the Technical Assistant had to give a reply with regard to the quality of the construction. With regard to Charge No. 6, the main allegation was that the file was not shown, which is the work of the Secretary. With regard to Charge No. 7, it was stated that the road was not properly constructed, and the signatures were missing on the file. With regard to Charge No. 8, it was stated that the signatures were missing, which too was also replied by the Secretary in his reply. With regard to Charge No. 9, it was stated that, against the sanctioned amount, certain photographs were affixed which did not bear any signature and it appears that the work of digging was done through a JCB. Regarding Charge No. 10, it was alleged that the Register regarding meetings was not produced, which led to forming an opinion that the meetings were merely held as formalities. The Secretary replied to these two charges through his communication, denying that the work was not done through JCB and referring to the attendance register in defense. Regarding charge number 10, it was specifically stated that the meetings were held; however, the three family members of the erstwhile Gram Pradhan never attended the meetings. With regard to Charge No. 11, it was stated that the drain was found broken. The Secretary also replied to this charge, stating that, on account of work carried out under the Jal Jeevan Mission, the drain was got damaged. 7. Despite the detailed reply by the Secretary, the order impugned came to be passed. The substance of the order is that no reply was filed by the petitioner and the reply given by the Secretary was not found to be acceptable and thus an opinion was found that an inquiry is required. 8. Considering the order impugned, it is clearly evident that, despite the reply, no categorically findings or material exists so as to form an opinion that the petitioner, as a Gram Pradhan, had committed any acts, which can be solely attributed to the duties assigned to the Gram Pradhan under Rule 47 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, so as to attract the major act of seizing the financial and administrative powers, as has been done. 4 9. Consequently, the order impugned dated 12.06.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, District Hardoi cannot be sustained and is set aside. The financial and administrative powers of the petitioner are restored. However, the respondents would be entitled to conclude the inquiry in accordance with the mandate of Rule 6 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 in accordance with law, and the petitioner shall cooperate in the same. 10. Present petition stands allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Arvind (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench