Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4605 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8231 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mamta Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchyat Raj Civil Sectt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Veerendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Surya Prakash Singh AND Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Mamta Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri R.D. Shahi, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent no.5 in Writ-C No.8231 of 2024 is taken on record. 2. An intervention application has been filed on 03.01.2025 by the complainant seeking to intervene in the proceedings in Writ- C No.26 of 2025. 3. In view of the fact that the intervenor is already a party as respondent no.5 in Writ-C No.8231 of 2024, all the parties were heard, although the applicant has no right to intervene. 4. As common questions of law and facts arise in both the writ petition and as such both the writ petitions are being decided by means of this common judgment. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.d. Shahi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 in Writ-C No.8231 of 2024 and Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf intervenor. 6. The Writ-C No.8231 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 10.09.2024, whereby, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan was seized in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 7. The facts of the case are that on account of allegations levelled, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice, to which, she filed a reply. In the preliminary inquiry held, the petitioner was found guilty majorly on two counts; first being given tender in violation of Government Order dated 26.04.2022 and secondly withdrawal of moneys in his own account for being paid to the labourers. 8. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that with regard to the first infraction, the tender process was resorted to and the tender was settled in favour of the firm. The other defence was taken that one of the partners of the firm was having a separate living. As regards the second charge, it is stated that on account of unrest, the amount was withdrawn and the payments were made to the concerned workers whose affidavits have been duly recorded. 9. It also bears from record that the final inquiry is yet to be instituted and no charge-sheet has been served till date and in the meanwhile, a fresh order came to be passed on 04.12.2024 directing a fresh preliminary inquiry in respect of the charges, which were not initiated. The proceedings are pending. 10. The Counsel for the respondents based upon the information states that the subsequent to the order dated 04.12.2024, an order dated 28.12.2024 was passed staying the execution of the order dated 04.12.2024 for further preliminary inquiry. 11. Be that as it may, in terms of the mandate of Section 95(1) (g) particularly Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-pradhan & Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, the proceedings are bound to be completed within a period of six months, as such, considering the mandate of Rule 6, Writ-C No.8231 of 2024 is disposed off directing the respondents to hold and conclude the inquiry after following the procedure of Rule 6 as contained in the Enquiry Rules 1997 positively within a period of three months from today. 12. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court, in case the inquiry is not concluded within the time granted, for recall of the order seizing administrative and financial power of the petitioner as Pradhan after expiry of three months. 13. In Writ-C No.26 of 2025, the order dated 04.12.2024 has been challenged. The said order is kept in abeyance vide order dated 28.12.2024 and the directions have been issued for conclusion of the final inquiry and thus directions for any other preliminary inquiry loses its relevance. In these circumstances, the Writ-C No.26 of 2025 is also disposed off. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench