HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8589 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. The instructions produced by the learned Standing Counsel are taken on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.08.2025 whereby the financial and the administrative powers of the petitioner, as Gram Pradhan, were ceased in exercise of the power conferred by virtue of proviso to section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 3. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was elected as a Gram Pradhan sometimes in the year 2021. He stated that based upon a complaint made by the earlier Gram Pradhan Sarvendra Kumar Gupta, a preliminary investigation was got carried and thereafter an order dated 18.07.2025 came to be passed against the petitioner whereby the financial and the administrative powers of the petitioner were ceased. The Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mradu Bhawani .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) said order dated 18.07.2025 was put to challenge in Writ- C No.7275 of 2025. The said writ petition was allowed on 05.08.2025 with direction to consider the reply of the petitioner and to pass a fresh order. In terms of the said directions contained, the order impugned has been passed. 4. In terms of the impugned order, it is evident that as many as ten charges were levelled against the petitioner. With regard to the charge no.1, it was alleged that the petitioner had got the Hand-pump Reboring/repair work in the years 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and the amounts were siphoned off. The Secretary of the Panchayat gave a reply with regard to the work done from July 2021 to March 2022 stating that all the payments were done after obtaining the requisite quotations. He stated, that he was not posted as secretary for the subsequent periods from the years 2022 to 2025. The petitioner, as a Gram Pradhan, has taken a defense that all the payments, after verification are done by the Secretary and all the works were got done after the proposal was passed in an open meeting and thus, it would be appropriate to see the reply of the then Secretary who was working for the years 2022 to 2025. Analysing the said defense, it has been held that the Gram Pradhan has not given a satisfactory reply to all the allegations and thus, a presumption was drawn that he was liable along with the secretary. The reply of the secretary who was working from the year 2022 to 2025 WRIC No. 8589 of 2025 2 was not available and thus not analysed and considered. 5. With regard to the charge no.2 regarding the improper construction of Community Toilet, the preliminary enquiry report was considered wherein it was stated that on account of storm, the water tank had blown away and water supply was affected and for the last six months, the same was not in use. The reply of the Gram Pradhan was mentioned, wherein he had taken a defense that on account of bad weather, the electricity supply was affected and on account of storm, water tank had fallen down and the Community Toilet was subsequently made workable. While analysing the said, a view was formed that admittedly the toilet was not working for six months, however, payments were made to the caretaker for the said period of six months. It was also recorded that the attendance register with regard to the said employee was not made available, which was the responsibility of the Gram Pradhan. 6. With regard to charge no.3 relating to the repair of the Kharanja Road and withdrawal of certain money, after considering the defense of the petitioner, a view was formed that as the Pradhan had taken a view that all the files relating to measurements were available with the Secretary, however the same was taken against the petitioner and a view was formed that a case for final enquiry was made out. 7. Similarly with regard to charge no.4 relating to carrying out the work of toilets for handicapped etc. in WRIC No. 8589 of 2025 3 the school, a view was formed that, certain things were broken down after construction and were got repaired and merely because there was certain improper upkeeping of records, a view was formed that a case for final enquiry was made out. 8. With regard to charge no.5 relating to installation of solar lights and withdrawal of excess money, after considering the reply, a view was formed that along-with the reply, the Pradhan has given only three photographs and the evidence in the form of other photographs were not made available, for which the Pradhan was responsible. 9. With regard to charge no.6 regarding rain water harvesting, a view was formed that at the time of inspection, the pipes were not found to be connected for which, the Gram Panchayat was responsible. 10. With regard to charge no.7 pertaining to there being no purchase of furniture, inverter etc., the analysis were made wherein it was stated that although all the things are lying in the office, a view was formed that a case for final enquiry is made out. 11. In respect of charge no.8, wherein it was stated that twice in one year, fingerprint machines were purchased and twice payments were made. The reply of the Pradhan was considered wherein he stated that the fingerprint machine along with the photographs were found at the spot and the purchase was made only once and was WRIC No. 8589 of 2025 4 subsequently got prepared. The said charge was found to be not verified against the petitioner. 12. With regard to charge no.9 pertaining to the allegation of purchase of a gate of community toilet, a view was formed that although, charge with regard to whitewash was verified, however, as no evidence was produced, a case for enquiry was made out. 13. With regard to charge no.10, which is the main charge, it was alleged that at the time of the construction of Panchayat House, the work was got done through MGNREGA after generating the work ID and payments were made contrary to the Government Order dated 26.04.2022, to the nephew of the petitioner. It was also recorded that the nephew had himself admitted that he had done the construction work and had received the money. Based upon the said, view was formed that payments were made to the nephew, which was contrary to the Government Order dated 26.04.2022. 14. With regard to charge no.11, wherein it was alleged that certain streetlights were shown to be non-existent and, the money was siphoned off. The reply of the secretary was considered that he was not the secretary for the period 2022 to 2025. The analysis were drawn that even the Pradhan had stated that out of three lights, two lights were found and with regard to the third light, the same should be re-verified, based upon the said submission, a view was formed that a case for final enquiry is made out. WRIC No. 8589 of 2025 5 15. On the basis of the said, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that apart from, charge no.10, none of the charges were found to be true and mere suspicion was recorded. It is argued that the works, based upon which the charge has been levelled, do not even fall within the duties of the Gram Pradhan as described under Rule 47 of the U.P. Panchayat Rules. 16. In the light of the said, the counsel for the petitioner argues that the severe order of ceasing the financial and the administrative powers has been passed at the instance of the complainant, who was the earlier Gram Pradhan and has made a complaint on account of political motives. 17. The counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order by arguing that admittedly, even as per the statement of the nephew of the petitioner, the work was got done through him, which is contrary to the Government Order dated 26.04.2022 and there was a clear conflict of interest, which is not permissible in terms of the said Government Order. He thus, argues that the order is justified and, the final enquiry is yet to be concluded, thus, no interference is called for and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. The complete instructions, handed over by the Standing Counsel and taken on record are a reiteration of the order impugned and in view thereof, no need for counter affidavit arises as, all the materials have been placed on record. WRIC No. 8589 of 2025 6 19. Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima- facie the charge no.10, appears to be the foundation for passing of the impugned order. With regard to work done and payments made to the nephew of the petitioner, which is said to be in violation of the Government Order dated 26.04.2022, the said Government Order has been placed across the Bar by the Standing Counsel, which bars that no supply/appointment of vendor should be done in respect of relatives of the Gram Pradhan as defined in para 54 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Service Regulations 1970 which includes, the 'nephew' also. The said submission of the Standing Counsel is rejected for the sole reason that, the bar contained in the Government Order pertains to the appointment of supplier/vendors, who are the family members of the Gram Pradhan as defined in para 54 of the Rules. The said Government Order does not apply to the works being done. 20. In the present case, the nephew was a mason from whom certain works were got done and payments were made. Prima-facie, there was no violation of the Government Order dated 26.04.2022. A drastic order ceasing the financial and the administrative power has been passed without there being sufficient material so as to justify the exercise of such a drastic power without the conclusion of the enquiry. The said order, does not satisfy the test of the judicial review and thus, cannot be sustained and is quashed. The enquiry shall however, go on in accordance with law. The result is that the financial WRIC No. 8589 of 2025 7 and administrative power of the petitioner shall be restored forthwith. 21. The writ petition stands allowed. September 10, 2025 VNP/- WRIC No. 8589 of 2025 8 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench