Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49985 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9993 of 2025 Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh,Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the prayer to direct the respondent authority to conclude the final enquiry against the respondent no. 6 in terms of Rule 6 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and members) Enquiry Rules 1997 on the allegation of financial irregularities and take an appropriate decision in terms of Section 95 (1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 within a period of time specified by the Hon'ble Court. 2. The petitioner is a complainant he has moved a complaint against the Village Development Officer/Secretary as well as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Baramai Nagla Bijan, Block Hasayan, District Hathras. 3. It is argued that on the basis of the complaint as made by the petitioner, the order dated 16.11.2024 was passed under section 95(1)G of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, U.P. Pradhans and Members) Enquiry, Rules, 1997 Amended 2001, by which the administration power of Respondent no. 6 was seized. 4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, a writ petition no. 41654/2025 was filed by the respondent no. 6 in which the effect and operation of the order dated 16.11.2024 passed under section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1947 was stayed and further directions were also given to conclude the final enquiry initiated against the respondent no. 6. Order dated 18.12.2024 reads as follows:- "In Re: Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.2 of 2024 1. The impleadment application is filed by complainant for being impleaded as party in the present petition. Although complainant do not have right to participate in the proceedings, however, he can participate in the proceedings but counter affidavit from complainant is not required. 2. Accordingly the impleadment application is disposed of. In Re: Memo of Petition 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for complainant and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is Gram Pradhan and financial administrative power of petitioner have been seized by impugned order dated 16.11.2024. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance to show cause notice, petitioner has submitted reply, however, the impugned order only states that reply of petitioner was not found to be sufficient. There is no application of mind while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reply has not been considered by the authority concerned and no reasons have been recorded as to why reply of petitioner was not found to be sufficient. 2-B Learned counsel for petitioner submits that allegation with regard to job card of eight persons is concerned, the same was not in the tenure of petitioner when he was Pradhan. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that such an objection should have been considered while passing the impugned order. 3. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that there is no application of mind in the impugned order and he prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. 4. List this case on 13.2.2025. 5. Until further orders, the effect and operation of impugned order dated 16.11.2024 passed under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1947, shall remain stayed. However, final enquiry against petitioner may go on and be brought to logical conclusion." 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the fact that considerable time has already been lapsed till date no decision has been taken in the matter. 4. On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 that the enquiry is still going on before respondent nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the Officers who were appointed to conduct the enquiry and submits his final report. It is further argued that the final decision in the matter will be taken by the respondent no. 2. 5. Learned Standing Counsel argued that enquiry initiated against the respondent no. 6 will conclude expeditiously. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is finally disposed of directing the enquiry officers who were appointed to conduct the enquiry in the matter to conclude the same most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Further the Respondent no. 2/District Magistrate, Hathras directed to conclude the enquiry initiate against the respondent no. 6 expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of initiation of enquiry report submitted by the aforesaid officers. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad