HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9272 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the caveator. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 03.09.2025, whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner were ceased in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 3. The instructions were called from learned Standing Counsel. He has produced the instructions, which are taken on record. 4. In view of the instructions and perusal of the impugned order, there is no need for a counter affidavit as the counter affidavit cannot supplement the order in the light of the law laid down in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others; AIR 1978 SC 851. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is the elected Gram Pradhan and on account of complaint made on 27.11.2021, initially an order came to be passed on 13.08.2024, for recovery of the said amount. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition, which is said to be pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.B.S. Rathaur, Desh Raj Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rishabh Tripathi, Vinay Kumar Shailendra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) was served with a show cause notice on 28.04.2025 (Annexure No.8), wherein it was stated that a complaint has been received that two amounts of Rs.48,000/- and Rs.57,000/- were withdrawn in the account of the real brother of the Gram Pradhan. The said show cause notice also mentions that a preliminary inquiry was got conducted. The gist of which is contained in the show cause notice. In terms of the said preliminary inquiry, it was alleged that in the preliminary inquiry, it was found that the two amounts, which were withdrawn for works, were found to have been done. It was, however, stated that with regard to the payments, it was stated that the said payments were done in November, 2021 and subsequently, on 26th April, 2022 a Government Order was issued prohibiting the enrollment of any relative as a vendor. 6. In light of the said, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why, an order may not be passed under Section 27 of the Act. 7. He argues that the petitioner had given a reply to the same stating that on account of festival, the amounts were withdrawn and were distributed through a composite account held by the brother of the petitioner and no allegation with regard to the non-payment of the amounts was ever alleged by the workers. He further argues that the mention of the Government Order has no relevance as admittedly, the payments were made in November, 2021 and the Government Order is subsequent thereto. 8. My attention is also drawn to the order passed on 13.08.2025 in respect of the same allegation, wherein it was stated that the allegations against the petitioner can at best be called as procedural irregularities. In light of the said, it is argued that the exercise of powers under proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act are not justified. 9. Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the caveator argue that admittedly, the amounts were withdrawn in the account of the brother of the petitioner, which is contrary to the guidelines, more so, when the workers had their own bank accounts, for which no justification has been offered. In light of the said, it is stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the order impugned has been properly passed. WRIC No. 9272 of 2025 2 10. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima facie in terms of the show cause notice, no allegations were levelled making allegations that the petitioner has abused this procedure for any gain out of the said procedural irregularities. The power Section 95(1)(g) of the Act can be exercised in the eventualities specified therein. Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is quoted herein-below:- "95(1)(g)- Remove a Pradhan or member of a Gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat' by U.P. Act No. 6 of 2017 if he - (i) absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings, (ii) refuses to Act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude, (iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or (iiia) has taken the benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section11-A or sub- section (5) of Section 12, as the case may be, on the basis of a false declaration subscribed by him stating that he is a member of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Classes, as the case may be. (iv) being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in politics, or (v) suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5-A: Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan or shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a Committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government." WRIC No. 9272 of 2025 3 11. For removal of the Pradhan, it is essential to allege that the Pradhan has abused his position as prescribed under Section 95(1)(g) (iii) of the Act. 12. In the present case, if the allegations exist with regard to abuse of position as a Gram Pradhan and it is found in the inquiry that the Pradhan has committed financial and other irregularities, the power can be exercised for ceasing the financial and administrative powers pending the inquiry. 13. In the present case, there are no allegations of the petitioner having committed financial impropriety, which can be termed an abuse of his position. The irregularities committed by the petitioner has been held to be an irregularity even in the report of the Committee, which is contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. Merely because, there are some irregularities, the same would be ipso facto not given the power to exercise the drastic power of restraining the Gram Pradhan for exercising his financial and administrative powers. 14. Finding the order impugned is contrary to the mandate of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, the same cannot be sustained and is set aside. However, the final inquiry may go on in accordance with law. 15. It is further clarified that the petitioner would be permitted to exercise his financial and administrative powers in accordance with law. 16. The writ petition is allowed in terms of above. September 25, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 9272 of 2025 4 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench