HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 19624 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, respondent no. 2 instituting an enquiry against the petitioner who is a Gram Pradhan of Village Garhi Bahadurpur, Block Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar, for alleged financial irregularities committed by him. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier a complaint was filed by Rantej S/o Harpal and Ramendra S/o Ramnath alongwith others for financial irregularities in the financial years 2021- 2022 and 2022-2023. On the said complaint, an enquiry was held and order under Section 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act was passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar dated 22.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ-C No. 34403 of 2023 (Tanu Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) before this Court which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 07.12.2023. A fresh complaint was made by the same persons on 14.06.2024 in which an enquiry was again held by the then District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar. In the enquiry report submitted by the letter of the District Development Officer, Muzaffar Nagar dated 14.06.2025, the allegation levelled against the petitioner was not found to be proved. Again a fresh complaint was filed by the same persons on 29.04.2025 on which a fresh enquiry had been instituted against the petitioner by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamal Kumar Kesherwani Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Tanu Choudhary .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) order dated 19.05.2025 which is under challenge. It is further contended that repeated inquiries on similar charges by the same persons is unsustainable, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, as per the instructions received the learned Standing Counsel contends that the order dated 19.05.2025 issued pursuant to the complaint dated 29.04.2025 contains different allegations. Therefore, a fresh enquiry is justified under law. 5. Having heard the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is evident from the complaints annexed with the writ petition that the complainants Rantej, Naresh and Ramendra are common in all the complaints. It has also been stated in the writ petition that the criminal cases are going on between the family members of the petitioner and the complainants. No bias or mala fide has been alleged by the petitioner against the State Officer or the Enquiry Officer appointed by the District Magistrate in its order dated 19.05.2025. The respondent no. 2 has found that the allegation against the petitioner requires fresh enquiry. 6. Under such circumstances, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted at this stage. 7. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to get the enquiry completed against the petitioner after affording him proper opportunity and taking into consideration the earlier complaints filed by the complainant on the same charges before any order is passed. October 15, 2025 M.S. Ansari WRIC No. 19624 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad