HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36625 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. Heard Sri Navin Kumar for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no. 2, whereby the financial and administrative power of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan has been ceased. On a complaint made against the petitioner for the alleged financial irregularities committed by her as Gram Pradhan of Village Muhiuddinpur, Block Pratappur, District Prayagraj, a preliminary enquiry was got conducted by the respondent no. 2 through District Supply Officer, Prayagraj. A report dated 11.7.2025 was submitted, pursuant to which, a show cause notice, dated 6.8.2025 was issued to the petitioner, which was duly served upon her on 18.8.2025. Subsequently, a reminder was issued to the petitioner on 29.8.2025, which was received by the petitioner on 3.9.2025. Pursuant to both the notices, admittedly no explanation was submitted by the petitioner. On 19.9.2025, the respondent no. 2 passed the order in exercise of his power under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, ceasing the administrative and financial power of the petitioner and directing a final enquiry on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report. It contended by the counsel for the petitioner that a detail explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 25.9.2025, which has not been considered by the respondent no. 2 while passing the order dated 19.9.2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Navin Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Shabina Begam .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) The explanation submitted by the petitioner is admittedly after passing of the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 19.9.2025. The said explanation of the petitioner dated 25.9.2025, annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, has been addressed to District Panchayat Raj Officer, Prayagraj and not to the respondent no. 2. In the preliminary enquiry report it has been found that the work which has been completed under the supervision of the petitioner is not satisfactory. The Toilets and Community Vermicompost constructed during her tenure is not in working condition and various other charges relating to the construction of toilet and gaushala also requires detail enquiry as they are not to the satisfaction of the norms prescribed. In view of the aforesaid facts, the non-submission of the explanation by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 despite having service of notice cannot be a ground to set aside the order dated 19.9.2025. The allegations against the petitioner requires a detail enquiry to which a prima facie satisfaction has been recorded by the respondent no. 2 in the order dated 19.9.2025. The writ petition being devoid of merits, is accordingly, dismissed. However, respondent no. 2 is directed to complete the enquiry process and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months, from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. October 28, 2025 Ranjeet Sahu WRIC No. 36625 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad