HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35495 of 2026 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel. 2. Petitioner before this Court is an outgoing Pradhan and presently he was exercising only his administrative powers in terms of relevant Government Orders issued from time to time. 3. On a complaint, inquiry was initiated in regard to construction of boundary wall/interlocking work, but ID was not generated for that part of work. 4. Accordingly, an inquiry report dated 9.7.2026 was submitted whereby the then Consulting Engineer, Gram Panchayat Officer and Assistant Development Officer were found guilty but no finding was returned so far as petitioner was concerned. 5. On basis of aforesaid inquiry report, a notice/charge-sheet was issued to petitioner as well as above three persons. The District Magistrate passed the impugned order imposing 1/3rd of penalty upon the petitioner and was removed from undertaking administrative work and remaining 1/3rd penalty upon Secretary Gram Panchayat and Consulting Engineer respectively. 6. I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner on following grounds: (a) First of all in the inquiry no allegation was made against the petitioner, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Prashant Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Panna Lal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) still a charge-sheet was issued against him also without assigning any reason not to act as per report. There was no explanation why no notice was issued to Assistant Development Officer. (b) Petitioner was exercising only his administrative powers, therefore, question to remove him from his post does not arise. (c) Since it is a case of recovery, therefore, proceedings ought to have been undertaken in terms of Rules 256 and 257 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 for recovery of surcharge which requires certain precondition such as audit report which is absolutely missing in the present case. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to dispute the above submissions on facts as well as on law. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order does not survive on facts as well as on law. Notice/charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on basis of an inquiry, where he was exonerated. Procedure for imposing surcharge was not undertaken and there was no ground to remove the petitioner who was exercising only administrative powers and since tenure as Pradhan is already over. 9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 11.8.2026 is set-aside and it legal consequence shall follow. However, this order will not come in the way if separate proceedings are initiated under relevant provisions for imposing surcharge. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. September 8, 2026 SB WRIC No. 35495 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad