Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42559 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6800 of 2025 Petitioner :- Umesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Bahadur Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shyam Bahadur, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a Gram Pradhan, challenging the order dated 01.07.2025/24.06.2025 (Annexure No.1), whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been ceased in exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Act, 1947. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a Gram Pradhan and a complaint was made by some complainants, in which a preliminary inquiry was got conducted and a report was submitted on 11.09.2023. In the said report, prima facie a view was formed that the petitioner is guilty of irregularities and loss to the extent of Rs.25,54,745/-. Founded on the said preliminary inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.11.2023 calling upon the reply to the allegations levelled in the show cause notice. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the said show cause notice and also furnished the documents in his defence. Subsequently, the reply submitted by the petitioner was got re-examined and an order came to be passed on 01.07.2025/24.06.2025 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner pending an inquiry. In the said order, which is on record as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, there were two charges, which were found to be prima facie established against the petitioner. Charge No.1 being that some work of interlocking in a primary school was got done vide ID, specified in the order. It was further observed that in terms of the financial sanction, purchases to the extent of Rs.98,412/- was done. However, as per the inquiry report, on the spot in question, lot of complainants gathered and created a ruckus and did not permit the interlocking tiles to be kept in a safe place and subsequently, the said tiles were stolen. It was further recorded that the Principal of the primary school had given a report, where the interlocking tiles, cement, etc were deposited in the primary school. However, on account of the ruckus created, the same could not be secured and were subsequently stolen. It was stated that 1475 interlocking tiles were stolen, which caused a loss of Rs.41,772/-, for which the petitioner was found to be prima facie guilty. With regard to the other charge, it was written that the other work was got done. However, the ID was wrongly mentioned. The order itself records that the same is a mere irregularity. 4. In the light of the said, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that admittedly the tiles were stolen on account of a ruckus created as is evident from the impugned order itself and thus, the petitioner cannot be faulted for the same. It is further argued that in terms of the duties of the Gram Pradhan prescribed under Rule 47 of the UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, the said infraction cannot be attributed to any of duties assigned to be performed by the Gram Pradhan and thus, on both the counts, a harsh order ceasing the financial and administrative powers is not justified. 5. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paras Jain Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2016 All 59 to argue that taking away the financial and administrative powers has serious consequences on the working of an elected representative and should not be interfered and obstructed unless the material is so severe for warranting such exercise of powers. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions, which are taken on record. In terms of the instructions, the assertions as contained in the order have been tried to be justified on the ground that it was the duty of the Gram Pradhan to have taken steps for protection of the interlocking tiles and in any case, it was incumbent upon the Gram Pradhan to demonstrate that he had taken any steps for lodging the FIR or for safe keeping of the interlocking tiles and thus, the order deserves no interference. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant appears and argues that two public interest litigations have been filed and are pending, wherein allegations have been levelled against the same Gram Pradhan and thus, the order has been rightly passed. 8. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is essential to notice that in terms of Rule 47 of the Rules, 1997, the following duties are prescribed to be performed by the Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat. Rule 47 of the UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 is quoted herein-below:- "47. Duties of the Pradhan of Gaon Panchayat- Unless prevented by reasonable cause, it shall be the duty of the Pradhan- (a) (i) to convene and preside at all the meetings of Gaon Panchayat, and (ii) to control the transaction of business at the meetings and preserve order ; (b) to watch over the finance and superintend the executive administration of the Gaon Panchayat and bring to its notice any defect therein ; (c) to superintend and control the establishment maintained by the Gaon Panchayat ; (d) to carry out the resolution of the Gaon Panchayat ; (e) to arrange for maintenance of the various registers provided under the rules and to carry on all correspondence on behalf of the Gaon Panchayat ; and Gaon Sabha ; (f) to arrange for execution of various works for the custody of the property of the Gaon Panchayat and for the assessment and collection of taxes rates and fees imposed by the Gaon Panchayat ; (g) to file civil case and launch prosecution on behalf of the Gaon Panchayat and the Gaon Sabha; and (h) to perform such other duties as are required of or imposed on him by or under the Act or any other law." 9. Learned Standing Counsel, based upon reading of clause-(f) of Rule 47, argues that it was the duty to secure the tiles, which has not been done by the Gram Pradhan. 10. The said argument merits rejection as on a plain reading of clause-(f) of Rule 47 of the Rules, 1997, it is the duty of the Gram Pradhan to arrange for execution of works for the custody of the property of Gram Panchayat. 11. In this case, there is no allegation that the Gram Panchayat was required to execute certain works for the custody of the interlocking tiles. No other allegations, which can be traceable to any of the prescriptions contained in Rule 47 of the Rules, 1997 are discernible from the order impugned. 12. In view thereof, the order impugned cannot be justified and is quashed. However, the final inquiry shall continue in accordance with law. 13. It is further clarified that the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner shall stand restored forthwith. 14. The petition is disposed of in terms of above. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench