HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 23683 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. The financial and administrative powers of the petitioner has been ceased by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Etah vide order dated 01.07.2022. Aggrieved against the aforesaid petitioner approached this Court but ultimately aforesaid order was withdrawn by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 06.12.2022. 2. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that now again complaint has been made by Sri Lokpal Shakya and pursuant to the aforesaid a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.05.2025. 3. Response to the same was submitted on 13.06.2025 and thereafter, after taking into consideration the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer the order impugned dated 04.07.2025 was passed by which again the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner has been ceased. 4. It is argued by Sri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the respondent no.2 has been passed in highly illegal manner. It is further argued that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner. It is further argued that though a detailed reply has been submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice but without considering the same and only on the basis of enquiry report order impugned has been passed. 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court instructions dated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Singh, Mool Chandra Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kartikeya Saran, C.S.C., Kamalendra Kumar Maurya Bhagwan Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 28.07.2025 was placed before the Court, same is taken on record. 6. While going through the same, the Court is not at all satisfied with the instructions provided by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Etah in the matter. 7. Sri Rahul Sahai, put up his appearance on behalf of complainant and argued that each and every charges made against the petitioner were duly dealt with and only thereafter the order impugned has been passed. It is further argued that only after recording prima facie satisfaction and that too on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report only the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner has been ceased but till date no final decision has been taken in the matter. 8. It is argued by Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the contesting- respondent that respondent no.2 be directed to conclude the enquiry in the matter expeditiously and till then no interference is required to be made. The aforesaid arguement was duly accepted by Sri Kartikey Saran, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. 9. In response to the same, it is argued by Sri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the respondent no.2 is absolutely non speaking order and the same has been passed without recording any independent prima facie satisfaction. 10. This fact is also clear from perusal of the order impugned and it is also admitted by the counsel for the respondents. 11. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order was passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner hence same has been passed in complete violation of principle of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 12. The writ petition is allowed. 13. Respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Etah is directed to pass fresh order, if so advised but strictly in accordance with law after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner expeditiously and positively within a WRIC No. 23683 of 2025 2 period of three weeks from today. 14. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate copy of this order to the respondent no.2 by Monday next, i.e., 22.09.2025. September 18, 2025 Pramod Tripathi WRIC No. 23683 of 2025 3 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad