Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46367 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7655 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satish Dhuriya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Shanker Tewari,Ajay Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent(s) and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 31.07.2025, whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, who is the elected 'Gram Pradhan', have been seized in exercise of powers under proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that, the petitioner is elected 'Gram Pradhan' and was elected in the year 2021, subsequently, a complaint was made against the petitioner and on the basis of the said complaint, Assistant Commissioner was appointed as enquiry officer for conducting the preliminary enquiry report. Subsequently, the complainant had approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 1800 of 2025, in which, directions were issued by this Court for conclusion of the complaint in accordance with law, expeditiously. After conducting of the preliminary enquiry, show cause notice dated 10.07.2025 was issued to the petitioner, which is contained as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, the petitioner, denied the allegations and filed his reply, which is contained as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. After the reply was filed, the order impugned has been passed, seizing the financial and administrative powers. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in respect of one charge, which pertains to construction of drain (nali) under the 'MGNREGA Scheme', it was alleged that for construction of a drain of 85 meter, an amount of Rs. 1,81,000/- was sanctioned on 20.08.2024 and, subsequently, the same was got paid from the consulting engineer, in which it was stated that an amount of Rs. 1,75,484/- has been paid and the work of the entire 85 meter was completed, however, at the bottom of the drain, the bricks were not found to be proper and only lean concrete was laid. Thus, the view was found that the said constructions with the lean contract ought to have been completed for Rs. 1,34,322/- instead of Rs. 1,75,484/- and, thus, an amount of Rs. 41,162/- was excess. 5. Petitioner as the 'Gram Pradhan' denied the said allegations and stated that after the work was completed, the technical officer had measured the construction and the amounts were paid in terms of the report submitted. It was also stated that all the said stages, the photographs, etc. was granted by the technical assistant. 6. While dealing with the said submissions, it was stated that although, reliance is based upon the report of the consulting engineer, however, the bottom of the drain was not found to be proper even as per the said report, for which, the petitioner was primafacie found to be guilty and his administrative and financial powers were seized. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, based upon instructions, which are taken on record, justifying the order by stating that it is the duty of the Gram Pradhan to have overlook the constructions of the drain as well as the foundation which has not been done, thus, he justifies the invocation of the powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 8. Learned counsel for the caveator, who has filed a caveat at the instance of the complainant, makes a request for adjourning the matter, however, the complainant has no say in the said matter, as such, he has not even been impleaded as respondent. 9. Considering the mandate of Section 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the proviso thereto, it is clear that the Pradhans are elected in terms of the statutory prescriptions contained under the Panchyat Raj Act, which has been amended after 73rd amendment of the Constitution of India, wherein Part IX of the Constitution of India was introduced for establishing the Gram Pradhan with a view to promote local self-governance, thus, the Pradhan although statutory in nature, as a constitutional flavour. 10. This Court in the case of 'Paras Jain Vs. State of U.P.'; AIR 2016 All 59 and in the case of Writ-C No.905 of 2025; 'Brij Mohan Vs. State of U.P. and others', decided on 18.02.2025 has held that, the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan, has serious consequences on his working, the same should be done only, when allegations are so serious that the continuance of the Gram Pradhan with his financial and administrative powers, would have an adverse affect, no such material exist in the present case, justifying the extreme powers of ceasing the administrative and financial powers of the Gram Pradhan, who is an elected representative. 11. The reasons recorded for ceasing the powers of Gram Pradhan are non-existent and there are no allegation with regard to the duties of the Gram Pradhan, as prescribed under Section 15 and Rule 47 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act and Rules. Thus, the order impugned cannot be justified and is, accordingly, set-aside/quashed. 12. The petition stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations, however, the enquiry shall continue and shall be concluded in accordance with law. 13. It is clarified that the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner shall be restored, forthwith. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench