Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75423 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14661 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Saroj Devi Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Singh Rathor Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The notice dated 19.04.2025 issued by the respondent no.4-Block Development Officer, Bijauli, District Aligarh is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. It is stated in the aforesaid notice that in the order dated 19.11.2024 by which petitioner was removed from the post of Gram Pradhan a direction was given to recover a sum of Rs.4,91,896.87/- from the petitioner. Aggrieved against the aforesaid petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ C No.41976 of 2024, which is still pending consideration. 3. Pursuant to the notice dated 19.04.2025 issued by the Block Development Officer, Bijauli, District Aligarh petitioner was directed to deposit aforesaid amount otherwise department will lodge an FIR against him. It is stated in the aforesaid notice that pursuant to the order passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh dated 19.09.2024 ( corrected date 19.11.2024) and the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aligarh a notice dated 13.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount. 4. In response to the aforesaid it is informed by the petitioner that in the writ petition filed by him before this Court an interim order was granted in his favour. Subsequent to the same vide letter dated 06.02.2025 petitioner was directed to place the copy of the interim order before the authorities but the same was not provided by him. In this view of the matter, a direction was given to the petitioner to deposit the amount as per order dated 19.11.2024. 5. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that recovery certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Bijauli, District Aligarh is without jurisdiction. In this regard he placed reliance upon Rule 256 (1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, which reads as follows :- "Rule 256(1). In any case where the Chief Audit Officer, Co-operative Societies and Panchayats, considers that there has been a loss, waste or misuse of any money or other property belonging to a Gram Sabha as a direct consequence of the negligence or misconduct of a Pradhan, Up- Pradhan, Memher, Officer or servant, as the case may be, to explain in writing why such Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Member, Officer, or servant should not be required to pay the amount misused or the amount which represents the loss or waste caused to the Gram Sabha or to its property and such explanation shall be furnished within a period not exceeding two months from the date such requisition is communicated to the person concerned: Provided that an explanation from the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or member of the Gram Panchayat shall be called for through the District Magistrate and from the officer or servant through the District Panchayat Raj Officer: Provided also that no explanation shall be called for from any member who is recorded in the minutes of the Gram Panchayats or any of its committee as having been absent from the meeting at which the expenditure objected to was sanctioned or who voted against such expenditure." 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. From perusal of the record it transpires that after the order dated 19.11.2024 was passed against the petitioner, a notice dated 13.12.2024 was issued by which he was directed to deposit amount of recovery as contained in the aforesaid order. 8. In response to the same, it is stated by the petitioner before the authorities that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner an interim order was granted by this Court though this fact was found incorrect by the authorities. 9. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any arguments has been raised that under what circumstances such kind of wrong statement has been made by the petitioner before the authorities a reference of which has been made in paragraph-2 of the aforesaid judgement. 10. At this point of time, a prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioner to dismiss present writ petition as not pressed with liberty to file fresh writ petition. 11. Prayer made is allowed. 12. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty as prayed. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Pramod Tripathi Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad