Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44707 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8188 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Verma And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Gram Vikas Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 19th April, 2025 and 12th June, 2025 whereby recovery proceedings have been initiated against petitioners in terms of Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act read with Rules 256 and 257 of the Rules framed thereunder. 3. Primary gist of submissions by learned counsel for petitioner is that both the orders have been passed without jurisdiction since in terms of petitioners 1 and 2 who are Secretary of the village panchyat as well as petitioners 3 and 4 who are servants of the village panchayat, it is only the Chief Audit Officer who is empowered under Rule 256 of the Rules to conduct an inquiry and it is only the District Panchayat Raj Officer who is empowered to pass final orders thereupon whereas in the present case inquiry has been conducted by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sitapur and final orders thereupon have been passed by the Block Development Officer. He has placed reliance on judgment of Division bench of this Court rendered in the case of Dinesh Kumar and others versus State of U.P. and others, writ C No.28230 of 2022 as well as judgments of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court following the same. 4. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the fact that inquiry in the present case has been conducted by the Deputy Director, Agriculture and final orders having been passed by the Block Development Officer concerned but submtis that so far as petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, they were employed as Technical Assistant on contractual basis and may not come within definition of servant as indicated in Rule 256 of the Rules. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record particularly the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this court in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra), it is evident that after consideration of Rule 256 of the Rules of 1947, the Division Bench came to the following conclusion:- "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, there is not an iota of doubt that the enquiry which was conducted by the Deputy Director (Agriculture), Basti, was an enquiry which was without jurisdiction. In fact, as per Rules 256 and 257 of the 1947 Rules, the enquiry ought to have been conducted by the Chief Audit Officer and now as per the order of delegation made by the Chief Audit Officer by the District Audit Officers. Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.8.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti, is quashed and is set aside. However, the Court suggests that the Law Commission may take up the matter and as per the conditions prevailing now i.e. as per the various powers which have been bestowed upon the Panchayats after the amendment of the Constitution of India by the 73rd Amendment by which Articles 243(A) to 243 (O) have been added in the Constitution of India and the Panchayats have attained constitutional status, a body which has powers to supervise the working of the Pradhans and its officials should be constituted for monitoring of the Panchayats and for supervising the work which is being done by them. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands allowed. A copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the State Law Commission." 6. Rule 256 of the aforesaid Rules of 1947 pertaining to surcharge Rules do not appear to make any distinction in the term 'servant' so far as it relates either to confirmed servants or one who has been engaged on contractual basis. 7. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment would be squarely applicable on all the four petitioners and since impugned orders have not been passed in terms of the aforesaid Rule, they are admittedly without jurisdiction. 8. In view thereof, the impugned orders dated 19th April, 2025 and 12th June, 2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to competent authorities to pass appropriate orders, if required after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners. 9. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench