Raj Narayan Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchyati Raj Sectt. Lko. and 2OTHERS

Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri U.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Veerendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the caveater.

¶10

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petititoner as Village Pradhan of village Mahmoodpur Jangal, PerganaAldemau, Vikas Khand- Motigarpur, Tehsil- Kadipur, DistrictSultanpur.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the petitioner was found to be prima facie guilty in an preliminary inquiry, a show-cause notice was issued to him, to which, the petitioner has submitted a reply along with the affidavits of numerous villagers who had stated that the petitioner has got the work of re-boring of hand pumps done. These affidavits refuted the allegations levelled against the petitioner that he had shown expenditure against re-boring of hand pumps without disclosing the locations of the same.

¶12

Limited submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 has been passed without dealing with

¶13

WRIC No. 12004 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

the explanation submitted by the petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice as well as the affidavits of villagers submitted in support of the petitioner's reply.

¶16

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 mentions the charges, the explanation submitted by the Village Pradhan and Panchayat Sachiv and the conclusions of the Authority in a tabular form.

¶17

Column 1 of the table contains the charges, column 2 briefly refers to the explaination submitted by the Vilalge Pradhan and column 4 draws conclusion after sufficient consideration of the Village Pradhan's explanation.

¶18

The District Magistrate, Sultanpur has mentioned in the conclusion that although, the Village Pradhan has submitted a list of hand pumps which are restored/re-bored but it shows discrepancies in the names of beneficiaries.

¶19

The list attached by the Village Pradhan along with his explanation bears the signatures of the Village Pradhan only whereas, the list submitted by the Panchayat Sachiv bears the signatures of Village Pradhan as well as Panchayat Sachiv. Thus, two different lists have been submitted by the Village Pradhan and Panchayat Sachiv which makes the list submitted by the Village Pradhan suspicious. Due to this reason, the affidavits submitted in support of the explanation are also not accepted.

¶20

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the District Magistrate, Sultanpur has taken into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and has dealt with the same appropriately.

¶21

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that a final inquiry was instituted against the petitioner by means of the impugned order and an inquiry officer has already been appointed who has been directed to conclude the same within a period of one month.

¶22

WRIC No. 12004 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Therefore, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the proceedings at this stage.

¶25

In view of the above forgoing discussions, I find no good ground to interfere in the order dated 18.11.2025. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off by issuing a direction that the final inquiry instituted by means of the order dated 18.11.2025 be concluded expeditiously, preferably within the time period mentioned in the impugned order or, in any case, not later than one month from today.

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶27

December 12, 2025

¶28

V. Sinha

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Narayan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchyati Raj Sectt. Lko. and 2OTHERS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Narayan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchyati Raj Sectt. Lko. and 2OTHERS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yogendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 2 Others

Virendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Dalbahadur Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

Smt. Rukmani and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge J.D. Mohammadi Kheri and Another

Raj Narayan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchyati Raj Sectt. Lko. and 2OTHERS

M/S Ametek Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Anmol Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure Industrial Development and Another