HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11351 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the caveator. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki whereby financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Silhaur, Development Block – Banikodar, District Barabanki have been seized under section 95 (1 ) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 keeping in view a preliminary enquiry report submitted by District Minority Welfare Officer and Assistant Engineer (PWD). By the same order the District Magistrate has constituted a two member inquiry committee consisting of District Agriculture Officer, Barabanki and Assistant Engineer, Construction Division (PWD) Barabanki to hold final inquiry in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Preliminary Inquiry against the petitioner was conducted by a two member committee consisting an Assistant Engineer. He has submitted that inclusion of Assistant Engineer in the inquiry committee vitiates the preliminary inquiry report as inclusion of Assistant Engineer is not contemplated by Rule 2 (c) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and Members) Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajendra Singh, Manjeet Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Jawahar Lal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Enquiry Rules, 1997. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Chandrajeet Rajbhar vs. District Magistrate Pilibhit and Others reported in [ (2002) 1 UPLBEC 582]. He has relied upon the full bench judgment of this Court in case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj), Government of U.P., Lucknow and Others reported in [2010 (111) RD 699]. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by a single bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8278 MS of 2013 (Udai Lal vs. State of U.P. & Others) decided on 24.7.2014 wherein this Court has taken into consideration the full bench decision in the case of Ramakant Singh vs. DDC and Other, AIR 1975 All 126 (FB) and has held that the District Magistrate can attach an Engineer for providing technical assistance to the enquiry officer, who would work on the direction of the inquiry officer. This Court further held that purpose of preliminary inquiry is only to collect incriminating material for examination / consideration of the District Magistrate as to whether these materials were sufficient to proceed with the final inquiry. In Udai Lal (supra) this Court had rejected the contention of Preliminary Inquiry being vitiated by inclusion of a Junior Engineer in the inquiry committee on the ground that the charges levelled against the Gram Pradhan were that he had utilized the money for construction of 120 toilets for BPL card holders but in fact only 45 toilets were constructed and amount for remaining 75 toilets had been embezzled. This fact came to the light in physical verification and the Junior Engineer who was engaged to provide the Technical Assistance to the Inquiry Officer, had no role to play in physical verification. In the present case the charge against the petitioner is of having made payment to his relatives which is prohibited in rules. This WRIC No. 11351 of 2025 2 charge is admitted by the petitioner as he has refunded the amount paid to his brother. When the charge has been admitted by the petitioner, the inclusion of an Assistance Engineer in conducting preliminary enquiry has not affected the outcome of the inquiry which is admitted by the petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no good ground to interfere in the seizure of the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner during the pendency of the final inquiry. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by directing the opposite parties to conclude the final inquiry against the petitioner expeditiously, say within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. November 27, 2025 mks WRIC No. 11351 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench