HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 25269 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri J.P.N. Singh for the petitioner and Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Magistrate, Basti, dated 15.6.2025, ceasing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Ghazipur, Block Haraiya, District Basti and further recovery of a Sum of Rs. 57,591.00 in exercise of powers under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that on a complaint received by Panchayat Raj Samiti, Vidhan Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, a preliminary enquiry was directed by the order of the District Magistrate, dated 28.2.2025. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report dated 26.4.2025, pursuant to which, a show cause notice, dated 1.5.2025 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 17.5.2025. 4. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, after referring to the enquiry report and the explanation of the petitioner on point no. 10, a formal enquiry has been directed in respect of some work under the MNREGA Scheme, by the impugned order. Therefore, the exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, was not called for. The order of recovery passed under the impugned order dated 15.6.2025 is unsustainable in view of the fact that the procedure contemplated under Rule 256 and 257 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 was not complied with, as such, it is liable to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : J.P.N. Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kartikeya Saran, C.S.C., Rohit Dwivedi Ramu .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that the work undertaken by the petitioner under the MNREGA Scheme, a sum of Rs. 1,72,773.00 has been withdrawn in excess of the work done, which requires a detail enquiry, therefore, the petitioner cannot be exonerated. However, he has fairly conceded that before passing the order of payment of surcharge under Section 27(2) of the Act of 1947, the procedure contemplated under Rule 256 and 257 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, have not been adhered to. 6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 7. It is evident from the explanation submitted by the petitioner that the withdrawal of sum of Rs. 1,72,773.00 which is said to be in excess of the work done has not been satisfactorily explained, even though, it has been found that in a subsequent spot inspection conducted, pursuant to the submission of his explanation, the works which were incomplete had been completed. As charges of misappropriation of public money is involved, in my opinion, final enquiry as contemplated under the order dated 15.6.2025 is justified. However, simply on the basis of preliminary enquiry conducted under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the order of recovery of 1/3rd amount of sum of Rs. 1,72,773.00 i.e. 57,591.00 from the petitioner under Section 27(2) of the Act is not justified, which is liable to be set aside. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is partly allowed. 9. The impugned order of the District Magistrate, Basti, dated 15.6.2025, in so far as it directs recovery of sum of Rs. 57,591.00 from the petitioner is set aside. However, the formal enquiry contemplated under the aforesaid order dated 15.6.2025, against the petitioner, is directed to be completed within a period of one month, from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. October 28, 2025 Ranjeet Sahu WRIC No. 25269 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad