HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Pawan Kumar Yadav .....Petitioner(s)

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lal Chandra Srivastava, Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Sri Lal Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Jaunpur, dated 14.1.2026, ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Jagapur, Block Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, in exercise of power under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to a preliminary enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 4.12.2025 was issued to the petitioner without annexing the preliminary enquiry report calling upon him to submit his explanation to the charges levelled against him. In pursuance to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed his explanation on 1.12.2025. The District Magistrate by his order dated 14.1.2026 has passed the order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner recording his prima facie satisfaction in respect of three charges; firstly, cleaning and digging of Katherwa Minor Canal in the financial year 2022-23 without obtaining NOC from the Irrigation Department; secondly, carrying out repair works of Hand-pumps in respect of which undated bills were found; and thirdly, in the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25, street lights have been purchased in contravention of the standard prescribed, which amounts to violation of Government Orders resulting in financial irregularity. It is contended that while passing the order dated 14.1.2026, the respondent no.2 has recorded the observation of the enquiry report and the explanation of the petitioner in front of it and without recording any reason for his prima facie satisfaction has concluded that the three charges require formal enquiry, as it involves financial irregularity. It is also contended that there is no finding to the effect as to why the explanation of the petitioner is not acceptable and what benefit has been derived by the Gram Pradhan by his alleged irregular action.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that for carrying out any work under the MGNREGA scheme, a proposal is sent by the Gram Panchayat to the Block Development Officer and after its approval and transfer of fund, the work is carried out. At no stage of the proceedings, any objection was raised that NOC had to be required from the Irrigation Department. Moreover, if a work is approved by the Block Development Officer, requirement of any NOC had to be fulfilled at that stage itself, as Gram Pradhan being an elected representative will not obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned department, if at all required.

5. In respect of charge of Geo-tagging of the Hand-pumps, he had submitted a reply that all the bill vouchers were uploaded, as required, after re-bores of the Hand-pumps were done. As the action of Geo- tagging involves technical expertise, it was not to be carried out by the Gram Pradhan, therefore, holding him responsible is not justified. It is contended that in respect of third charge of purchase of street lights, specific explanation was given that the purchase was made on the basis of electric pole already installed in the village and there were separate switches installed for switching off the lights, some of which are not in working condition. He further contends that in the absence of any allegation of misappropriation of fund by the Gram Pradhan for his personal benefit or use, the financial and administrative powers could not have been ceased pending formal enquiry.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Coordinate B