Smt. Nareshiya Alias Naresh Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yadvendra Krishan for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Rishi Yadav for the respondent no. 3.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Magistrate, Sambhal, dated 5.7.2025, ceasing the financial and administrative power of the petitioner as Village Pradhan in exercise of his power under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that some complaint had been filed against the petitioner for financial irregularities in carrying out development works in the village. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Sambhal was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, who submitted his inquiry report dated 5.7.2024. Pursuant to the said report, the District Magistrate, Sambhal passed the order dated 8.4.2025, for re-measurement of the development works, appointing the Executive Engineer (Rural Engineering Department), Sambhal, who submitted his report dated 9.5.2025, by making a spot inspection in the presence of the representative of the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent report dated 9.5.2025 was not served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 5.7.2025, as such, it cannot be sustained.

WRIC No. 25514 of 2025

2

On the other hand, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Advocate General submits that pursuant to the Inquiry Report dated 5.7.2024, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his reply on 16.10.2024. The deficiency and irregularity in the development work mentioned in the Inquiry Report dated 5.7.2024 is the same as in the inquiry report dated 9.5.2025. The said report was a technical report in respect of the measurement only which was carried out in the presence of the representative of the Gram Pradhan, as such, its service upon the Gram Pradhan was not necessary at the preliminary stage. It has been further informed on instructions that pursuant to the impugned order dated 5.7.2025, a final inquiry report has already been submitted on 30.8.2025, pursuant to which, a show cause notice has already been issued to the petitioner on 8.9.2025.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

The order of the District Magistrate, Sambhal, dated 5.7.2025, recording his prima facie satisfaction in respect of development work carried out in the village, he has considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Regarding non-service of the technical report dated 9.5.2025, which according to the order of the District Magistrate, Sambhal, dated 8.4.2024, was only with respect to the verification of the measurement given in the earlier inquiry report. The contents of the Inquiry Report dated 9.5.2025 are almost similar to the Inquiry report dated 5.7.2024. The said report is not the only basis for passing of the order dated 5.7.2025.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate, Sambhal, dated 5.7.2025. However, as it has been informed that a final inquiry report has already been submitted and show cause notice pursuant to it has been issued to the petitioner, it would be appropriate that the petitioner submits his reply to the said show cause notice within two weeks from today and the District Magistrate, Sambhal will take a final decision by passing an appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a further period of four weeks, thereafter.

WRIC No. 25514 of 2025

3