Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40397 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7616 of 2025 Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayat Raj Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 2. No notice need be issued to the respondent no. 5 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed. 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided. 4. Under challenge is the order dated 04.06.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition passed by the respondent no. 6 (wrongly indicated in the prayer clause as having been passed by the respondent no. 5). 5. By the said order, the contractual services of the petitioner who is working as a Gram Panchayat Rozgar Sewak have been terminated. 6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working as Gram Panchayat Rozgar Sewak since the year 2007. Various show cause notices had been issued to the petitioner to which a detailed reply has been submitted by the petitioner. One of the said Show Cause Notice is dated 15.01.2025, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition to which a reply has been submitted on 28.01.2025, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition. 7. Contention is that the respondents without considering the reply of the petitioner as submitted by the petitioner have proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner and hence the petition. 8. On the other hand, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4 as well as Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 have justified the order by contending that the contractual services of the petitioner are governed by the Government order dated 23.11.2007 of which Clause- Cha provides that services of the Gram Panchayat Rozgar Sewak can be terminated after considering the reply to the Show Cause Notice that may be submitted to him. 9. Contention is that the reply submitted by the petitioner had been examined by the respondent no. 6 in its meeting held on 25.05.2025 and thereafter, the order impugned has been passed. 10. Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has passed on a xerox copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 25.06.2025. Perusal of the said minutes would indicate that although the respondent no. 6 has referred to the dates of various replies that have been submitted by the petitioner but there is no consideration of the same. 11. The Government order dated 23.11.2007, as already indicated above specifically provides in Clause-Cha that in case a reply is submitted by the Gram Panchayat Rozgar Sewak, the same would be duly considered. Consideration of the said reply would obviously require application of mind to the reply submitted by the Gram Panchayat Rozgar Sewak and not only referring to the date of reply as has been done by the respondent no. 6. 12. Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4 has, however, placed reliance on the instructions sent by the respondent no. 4 i.e Block Development Officer, Block Development, Rupai Deeh, Gonda to contend that there are various serious allegations levelled against the petitioner. 13. So far as the instructions given to the Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4 by the Block Development Officer, Block Development, Rupai Deeh, Gonda are concerned, suffice it to say that if a thing is to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner or not all. (See with advantage: Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad & Ors; 1999 (8) SCC 266). Once the Government order dated 23.11.2007 itself provides for consideration of the reply to the Show Cause Notice and the order impugned being passed without considering the reply as submitted by the petitioner against the Show Cause Notice it cannot be said that the order is legally sustainable. Thus, even if there are serious allegations against the petitioner, the respondents should have adhered to the provisions of the Government order dated 23.11.2007. 14. Considering the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 04.06.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside. 15. Consequences to follow. 16. It is open for the competent authority to pass a fresh order, if required in accordance with law. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench