HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 18591 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1.This Court had passed the following order on 04.07.2025. "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri B. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. The proceedings under Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was initiated against the respondent no.5/Gram Pradhan/Smt. Bharti Yadav by the district authorities. Ultimately vide order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 namely District Magistrate, Jaunpur a final decision has been taken in the matter by which the respondent no.5 was exonerated. 3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that though he is only a complainant and once it is found that a sum of Rs.28500/- and Rs.34100/- has been embezzled by the Gram Pradhan considerable action be taken against her but in place of taking action, she was exonerated from the charges only on the ground that the aforesaid amount has already been deposited by her. It is further argued that though proceedings were initiated against the Gram Pradhan as well as Gram Panchayat Officer but punishment has been awarded to the Village Panchayat Officer. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows :- "जॉच अिधकारी / िजला कायर्क्रम अिधकारी, जौनपुर द्वारा प्रस्तुत जॉच आख्या के क्रम में सम्बिन्धत ग्राम प्रधान व सिचव, ग्राम पंचायत को जारी कारण बताओं नोिटस एवं सम्बिन्धत ग्राम प्रधान व ग्राम पंचायत सिचव, द्वारा प्रस्तुत उत्तर । स्पष्टीकरण के क्रम में नैसिगक न्याय के िसद्धान्त के आधार पर िदनांक 27.02.2025 को सुनवाई की ितिथ िनधार्िरत करते हुये िशकायतकतार् श्री राजबहादुर यादव, ग्राम प्रधान श्रीमती भारती यादव, वतर्मान सिचव श्री प्रमोद Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Indrapal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C. Raj Bahadur .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) यादव, तत्कालीन सिचव श्री सजीव मौयार्, जॉच अिधकारी । िजला कायर्क्रम अिधकारी श्री नरेन्द्र िसह, िजला पंचायत राज अिधकारी, जौनपुर की उपिस्थित में सुनवाई की गई। सुनवाई के समय जारी कारण बताओं नोिटस एवं प्राप्त उत्तर / स्पष्टीकरण के साथ संलग्न साक्ष्यों का परीक्षण िकया गया। परीक्षणोपरान्त हनुमत डीह मिन्दर एवं शंकर भगवान मिन्दर पर हैण्डपम्प िरबोर कराये िबना मु0 62600.00 धनरािश आहिरत िवत्तीय गबन िकया जाना पाया गया। िजसके सापेक्ष ग्राम प्रधान द्वारा उक्त गबन की गई धनरािश मु० 28500.00 िदनांक 07.03.2025 को एवं मु0 34100.00 िदनांक 08.03.2025 को को यू०बी०आई० चम्बलतारा में ग्रामिनिध के खाता संख्या 461702010052311 में जमा कर रसीद प्रस्तुत िकया गया है। अतः जाँच अिधकारी। िजला कायर्क्रम अिधकारी, जौनपुर द्वारा प्रस्तुत जाँच आख्या के क्रम में सम्बिन्धत ग्राम प्रधान व सिचव, ग्राम पंचायत को जारी कारण बताओं नोिटस एवं प्राप्त उत्तररा स्पष्टीकरण के साथ संलग्न साक्ष्यों के परीक्षणोपरान्त गबन की गई शासकीय धनरािश मु० 62600.00 सम्बिन्धत ग्राम पंचायत के ग्रामिनिध में जमा कर िदये जाने के फलस्वरूप शासकीय क्षित न होने की दशा में ग्राम प्रधान को भिवष्य में इस प्रकार का कृ त्य न करने के सम्बन्ध में कठोर चेतावनी एवं सम्बिन्धत सिचव की एक वािषक वेतन वृिद्ध बािधत करने के साथ प्रितकू ल प्रिविष्ट प्रदान करते हुए िशकायतकतार् द्वारा प्रस्तुत िदनांक रिहत िशकायती प्राथर्ना पत्र एतद्वारा िनस्तािरत िकया जाता है।" 5. From perusal of the record it transpires that the findings recorded by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Jaunpur is against the provisions of law. 6. Issue notice to respondent no.5 fixing 07.08.2025. 7. Steps be taken within a week to serve aforesaid respondents through speed post AD. 8. List on 07.08.2025 within top ten cases. In the meanwhile, learned Standing Counsel will file counter affidavit." 2. As per the office report, out come of notice issued to respondent no. 5 is not on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants submits that the procedure prescribed under Section 95(1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act for conducting an inquiry against the Pradhan requires that, where on basis of a preliminary inquiry if Pradhan is found to have been involved in financial embezzlement, a further inquiry into alleged financial irregularities is required to be conducted. 4. Having gone through the material available on record, this Court WRIC No. 18591 of 2025 2 finds that, although the procedure prescribed under law was not followed at the stage of preliminary inquiry but on basis of said inquiry concerned respondent was exonerated. 5. The Court takes note of subsequent events that tenure of respondent no. 5 has already come to an end. He is, therefore, no longer holding the office of Pradhan and is exercising on administrative powers. Consequently, even if this Court were to hold that further proceedings are required to be undertaken in accordance with law, respondent no. 5 cannot now be removed from the said office. 6. In view of the aforesaid procedural position as well as the subsequent events, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner-complainant in the present writ petition. 7. The District Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure that, while conducting any such inquiry in future, the procedure prescribed under law is duly followed. 8. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed. October 5, 2026 Priyanka WRIC No. 18591 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRIYANKA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad