Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134759 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26595 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shweta Sahani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Lal Ram,Pramod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur/ Respondent No. 2 by which the financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized is under challenge. 2. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that one Ms. Priyanka Gupta, Panchayat Sahayika moved an application to Assistant Development Officer on 19.12.2024 regarding the arrears of honorarium which was signed by 8 other members of the Gaon Sabha. 3. It is argued that inspite of the demand made by Ms. Priyanka Gupta the honorarium was not paid to her. Hence the decision was taken to initiate disciplinary and misc. proceedings against the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid, notice dated 14.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner, since no reply was given by her, the order impugned has been passed by which the financial and administrative power of the petitioner has been seized. 4. It is further argued that the aforesaid exercise could only be completed in case a complaint is made against the petitioner and on the basis of the said complaint, the inquiry committee was constituted and thereafter considering the report submitted by the inquiry committee, the decision could only be taken. 5. The letter dated 19.12.2024 written by Ms. Priyanka to Assistant Development Officer was without complying the provisions contained under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 as well as the provisions contained under Rules 3 to 6 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. The order impugned has been passed in complete violation of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2011 (29) LCD 221. It is argued that time and again directions were given by this Court to pass a speaking order after recording prima facie satisfaction though even without recording any prima facie satisfaction, order impugned has been passed. 6. It is further argued that reply to the show cause notice dated 14.02.2025 was duly submitted by the petitioner on 27.02.2025 but without considering the same, the order impugned has been passed. 7. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that since no reply was submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice issued to her, the decision was rightly taken by the Respondent No.2 seizing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner. Insofar as the legal aspect as has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner regarding non-compliance of the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and Rules 1997 is concerned. It is admitted that the aforesaid provisions was not complied by the Respondent No.2 before taking the aforesaid decision. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that before passing order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2, a show cause notice dated 15.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner. As per the averments made in the writ petition, reply to the aforesaid notice was submitted by the petitioner on 27.02.2025 but nothing has been brought on record regarding the mode on which the aforesaid reply was submitted by the petitioner before the Respondent No.2. 10. In this view of the matter, order impugned has been passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. Since order impugned has been passed in violation of the provisions of Act, 1947 and the Rules, 1997 and without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh reply along-with earlier reply dated 26.06.2025 alleged to be submitted by the petitioner before the Respondent No.2, copy of which is appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition within a period of two weeks from today. If it is so, the Respondent No.2 is directed to pass a fresh order in the matter strictly in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. 11. Order impugned will be subject to the final decision taken by the Respondent No.2. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad