HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 39422 of 2026 Alongwith 1. Writ-C No. 39657 of 2026 (Smt. Sumbul Jahan alias Sumbul vs. State of U.P. and others) 2. Writ-C No. 39756 of 2026 (Smt. Sarvesh vs. State of U.P. and others) Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Satyam Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents. 2. In the present cases petitioners' tenure as Gram Pradhan was over, however, in terms of Government Orders dated 25.05.2026 and 29.05.2026 they were exercising power as an Administrator. 3. Proceedings were initiated against petitioners under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 after their tenure as Pradhan was over and when they are exercising aforesaid powers that during their tenure they have committed financial irregularities. 4. A notice was issued to submit reply within a period of seven days which effectively remain only four days since notice was received at a later stage. Admittedly, no reply was submitted and impugned order was passed whereby administrative powers were seized and a liability of certain amount was determined. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that not only the notice Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satyam Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Shila Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) was issued without jurisdiction but inquiry was also not conducted in terms of relevant provisions. Otherwise also, a very short period was provided to submit reply. Even if no reply was filed, the authority concerned cannot accepted inquiry report only on a ground that no reply was filed, without application of independent mind. 6. Learned counsel lastly submitted that nature of inquiry would only be a preliminary for the purpose of imposing surcharge in terms of Section 27 of Act which requires an independent inquiry as per procedure prescribed, i.e., on basis of an audit report as well as that since tenure of petitioners have already over, therefore, at this stage they cannot be removed from the post of Administrator. 7. I have considered aforesaid submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not a case where petitioners have committed any irregularity after they took over as an Administrator, therefore, considering nature of inquiry as well as that proceedings of surcharge are still not initiated, the Court finds that by way of impugned order only a preliminary inquiry is conducted which could be a basis to initiate inquiry for determination of surcharge. 8. In view of above, impugned orders dated 12.09.2026 are interfered only to extent of it's later part, whereby petitioners are removed from the post of Administrator and accordingly petitioners' power as an Administrator is restored. So far as other argument is concerned, it may be considered as and when required, if proceedings for surcharge is initiated. 9. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. September 30, 2026 AK WRIC No. 39422 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad