Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77805 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6662 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chhatrapal Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hardev Singh,Ramesh Chandra Agrahari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Pandey,Rabindra Tiwari Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents and Sri Rabindra Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/private respondents. 2. The order dated 25.01.2025 passed by District Magistrate, Pilibhit/respondent no. 2 by which the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner has been seized, is under challenged. 3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that on the basis of complaint made by the complainant/private respondents, Additional Chief Development Officer, District Panchayat Pilibhit was appointed as inquiry officer in order to conduct a preliminary enquiry. A report was submitted by him on 14.11.2024 and on the basis of the same a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.12.2024, reply to the same was submitted by the petitioner on 07.01.2025. 4. Taking into consideration the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and in response to the same reply submitted by the petitioner, a decision has been taken by District Magistrate, Pilibhit by which the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner has been seized, hence the present petition. 5. Apart from various other argument two basic arguments have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner, which are as follows:- 1. Reply submitted by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the respondent no. 2 while passing the aforesaid order. 2. As per Rule 4 U.P. Panchayat Raj Pradhan Up Pradhan and Member Enquiry Rule, 1997, it is only the District Panchayat Raj Officer who was authorized to conduct a preliminary enquiry. In this regard he placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by this Court in Case of Ganesh Ram Vs. Chief Development Officer, Ghazipur reported in 2000 (91) R.D. 333. In the case of Ganesh Ram (supra), this Court has held in paragraph no.9 as under:- "A bare perusal of Rule 5 indicates that the State Government after receipt of the report under Rule 4 (2) may hold regular enquiry and for that purpose, an inquiry officer be appointed. Now, the question for determination emerges as to who can be the Inquiry Officer. For this purpose, the definition clause has been quoted above. Hence, the definition of the inquiry officer is related to Rule 5 and not to Rule-4 te. the preliminary enquiry inasmuch in Rule 4, the word 'inquiry officer' has not been used but the designation of District Panchayat Raj Officer has only been used which shows that the definition of the inquiry officer in the definition clause has no relevance with the conduct of preliminary enquiry. Therefore, in the matter in hand, where the matter relates to preliminary enquiry only, neither Rule 2 nor Rule 5 would be applicable and only the District Panchayat Raj Officer has been authorised to conduct a preliminary enquiry according to Rule 4 of the Rules." 6. When a specific query has been raised by this Court by the counsel for the respondents that whether the reply submitted by the petitioner was taken into consideration by the respondent no. 2 or not, it is very fairly argued by them that the reply has not at all been taken into consideration while passing the order impugned. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. After perusal it is clear that the order has been passed without taken into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner. It further appears from perusal of the order that the Additional Chief Development Officer, District Panchayat Pilibhit was appointed as inquiry officer in order to conduct a preliminary enquiry, which is not permissible as per law laid down by this Court in case of Ganesh Ram (Supra). 9. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order impugned has been passed without considering the reply, and as such the order as being in violation of principle of natural justice is liable to be set aside and hereby set aside. 10. It is made clear that this order will not restrain to the respondent-authorities to pass a fresh order, if so advised, but order should be passed strictly in accordance with law. 11. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad