HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Ajay Singh (Village Pradhan)

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anoop Kumar Dubey, C.S.C.

Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri S. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Anoop Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the caveator complainant, who has not been arrayed as a party respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of respondent no.2, dated 27.11.2025, ceasing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bahlolpur, Development Block Tarwan, District Azamgarh, in exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

3. The facts of the case as discernible from the writ petition are that a complaint was made by one Brijraj Yadav, alleging financial irregularities by the petitioner in respect of development work done under his supervision in the Gram Panchayat. On the aforesaid complaint, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh by his order dated 03.09.2024, appointed Deputy Commissioner (Self Employment), Azamgarh as Enquiry Officer. When no action was taken pursuant to it, the complainant moved another complaint, on which, on 21.05.2025, the District Magistrate appointed the District Agriculture Officer, Azamgarh and Executive Engineer (Sharda Canal), Azamgarh. The aforesaid two member committee prepared its enquiry report on 26.05.2025, in respect of complaints relating to four works of pond excavation, carried out in the Gram Panchayat under the supervision of the petitioner. Subsequently, another enquiry report, dated 20.06.2025, was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner (Self Employment), Azamgarh and Assistant Engineer, Zila Panchayat, Azamgarh, conducting an enquiry on the complaint of Brijraj Yadav, in respect of three works.

4. On the basis of enquiry report dated 20.06.2025 and 26.05.2025 (submitted on 22.07.2025), the respondent no.2, issued a show cause notice dated 14.08.2025 to the petitioner in respect of four works, namely digging of pond in the field of Prem Bahadur in financial year 2023-24; re-digging of pond in the field of Brijesh in financial year 2020-21; digging of drain from the field of Jai Prakash to Rameshwar; and digging of pond in the field of Hari Shankar Singh (part of enquiry report dated 26.05.2025). The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 09.09.2025. On consideration of the enquiry report dated 26.05.2025 and the reply of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 has passed the order dated 27.11.2025, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

5. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that, the complainant Brijraj Yadav is in habit of making successive complaint against the development works, which are carried out under the supervision of the petitioner in the Gram Panchayat. He has drawn attention of the Court to the documents filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, where various complaints regarding the same work have been disposed of, as they were found baseless. He has further contended that in the enquiry report dated 26.05.2025, no financial irregularity on the part of the petitioner was found by the two member committee constituted by the order of the District Magistrate, dated 21.05.2025. However, the enquiry report submitted by the committee constituted by the earlier order of the District Magistrate dated 03.09.2024, which was submitted on 20.06.2025, has been accepted for initiating proceedings against the petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act. It is further submitted that the works mentioned in the enquiry report have been found to be in existence with short deviation in its actual status due to passage of time. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 20.06.2025, regarding the work of ex