HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Smt. Prema Devi .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Yadav, Nisheeth Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 13.01.2026, ceasing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner, as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Khanpur Dandi, Development Block Pratappur, District Prayagraj, in exercise of his power under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P.

Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner did not refer to the materials on which basis the charge was framed. Neither the enquiry report was accompanied with the show cause notice, nor the materials relied upon, had been supplied to the petitioner. It is further contended that the charges referred to in the show cause notice stated that the development work carried out in the gram panchayat is being supervised by the son of the Gram Pradhan and there are complaints regarding non-payment of wages to the labourers. The finding of the enquiry report mentioned in the show cause notice shows only the place where the work has been carried out with certain amount for which the Prahdan and Panchayat Secretary have been prima facie found to be guilty. There is no other material to show as to the amount mentioned in the show cause notice relates to which period, nor there is any averment regarding the complaints made by the labourers, who have not received their emoluments. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Writ - C No. - 905 of 2025 (Brij Mohan Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. And 2 Others). Relevant paragraphs 48 & 49 are reproduced as under:-

"(48) In view of the aforesaid discussion and the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Natwar Singh (supra) as also in T. Takano (supra) and also considering the fact that cessation of financial and administrative powers of an elected office holder has serious consequences and may in a given case result in irreparable loss if ultimately he is exonerated in the final inquiry, an aspect which has been emphasized by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) and the five Judges decision in Paras Jain (supra) as also the Full Bench decision in Vivekanand Yadav (supra) and Hafiz Attaullah Ansari (supra) and also as such elected office bearer is not to be associated in the preliminary inquiry which means that the preliminary inquiry report, which could be the basis for issuance of a show cause notice under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g), would be prepared behind his back, then, an important question arises as to why, instead of furnishing the said material which is the basis for a proposed adverse action having serious civil consequences against him, the show cause notice is required only to indicate the charges/ material/evidence against him as per the Full Bench in Vivekanand Yadav (supra) read with the decision in Hafiz Attaullah Ansari (supra)? In view of the judgment in Natwar Singh (supra)

such material needs to be given to the elected office holder.

(49) Mere giving of the preliminary inquiry report need not necessarily lead to a situation where even at the interim stage, a final inquiry would be held, as for that a detailed procedure is separately provided in Rule 6 of the Rules, 1997 which is not attracted at this stage. The evidence which is mentioned in the preliminary inquiry report need not be furnished at that stage but the preliminary inquiry report or in its absence the material which is the ba