JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Shreeprakash Singh, for the petitioner, Standing counsel, for State of U.P. 2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of District Panchayat Raj Officer, dated 18.05.2016 and 13.06.2016 directing to recover an amount of Rs. 89418.00 from the salary of petitioner, in instalments. 3. The petitioner was posted as 'Gram Panchayat Officer', of village Salarpura, block development Gangoh, district Saharanpur, in the year 2011-2012. Under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, three projects were sanctioned for village Meghan Majra, hamlet of village Salarpura, namely (i) 384.09 cubic meters earthen road from Panchayat Building Salarpura, gher of Ashok to the boundary of pond up to the field of Nathi i.e. 236 meter X 2.95 meter X 0.62 meter. Total cost of Rs. 49100/- (ii) Earthen road from Panchayat Building Salarpura, by the side of pond up to the house of Hari Singh total cost of Rs. 195520/- (iii) Earthen road from main road, house of Rashid Taly to Panchayat Building Salarpura, total 1775.68 cubic meter, total cost Rs. 148840/-. These projects were allegedly completed under supervision of Pradhan, Panchayat Secretary and Technical Assistant. 4. Balbir Singh @ Rana and Rajesh Kumar, residents of the village made several complaints dated 12.12.2014, 15.12.2014 and 08.07.2015 alleging that actual work on the spot of the aforementioned projects were not done fully. On the basis of manipulation in papers, payments were made in collusion of Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Raj Officer and Technical Assistant. District Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under Section 95 (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rule-4 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, by his order dated 31.12.2014, appointed Assistant Commissioner & Assistant Registrar, Cooperative and Assistant Engineer, PWD to conduct an inquiry. Inquiry Committee, after inquiry submitted its report dated 10.12.2015, showing that in the aforesaid three projects, an amount of Rs. 268254/- was embezzled. 5. District Magistrate served a charge sheet dated 18.05.2016, upon the petitioner in respect of embezzlement of the aforementioned amounts in three projects of village Meghan Majra, hamlet of village Salarpura. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 01.06.2016. However, it appears that District Magistrate by order dated 16.04.2016, directed to recover Rs. 89814/- (i.e. ?rd of total embezzled amount) from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 01.06.2016. However, it appears that District Magistrate by order dated 16.04.2016, directed to recover Rs. 89814/- (i.e. ?rd of total embezzled amount) from the petitioner. In pursuance thereof District Panchayat Raj Officer passed orders dated 18.05.2016 and 13.06.2016 directing to recover an amount of Rs. 89418.00 from the salary of petitioner in instalments. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The petitioner has stated that aforementioned works were done under the supervision of Technical Assistant along with Pradhan and him in the year 2012. Inquiry was conducted in the year 2015. In the meantime, due to soil erosion, in rainy seasons, some soil has been floated from the road. Report that less work has been found on the spot, is illegal. District Magistrate himself wrote a letter dated 19.10.1993 that inquiry in respect of earthen work would be done within six month. Under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, project works are done through Job Card Holders and payment is directly made in their account and no question of embezzlement arises at all. Recovery in the present matter is illegal. He also relied upon decision of this Court in Writ-A No. 39716 of 2016 Dipansu Saini v. State of U.P. decided on 26.08.2016 and submits that Dipansu Saini was Technical Assistant in the present case. On the basis of report dated 10.12.2015, ?rd amount was sought to recover from him, without considering his reply. As such recovery was set aside and the matter was remitted to pass a fresh order after considering his reply. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Although it was argued that under section 16 of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, project works are done through Pradhan under supervision of Technical Assistant. The petitioner, being Panchayat Secretary is only joint signatory of the cheques relating to payment. Entire responsibility is of Pradhan, but in paragraphs-3, 4 and 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that works were done under his supervision as such he cannot deny his liability. 8. Inquiry Report dated 10.12.2015 has been filed as Annexure CA-2, along with Counter Affidavit. Entire responsibility is of Pradhan, but in paragraphs-3, 4 and 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that works were done under his supervision as such he cannot deny his liability. 8. Inquiry Report dated 10.12.2015 has been filed as Annexure CA-2, along with Counter Affidavit. A perusal of report does not indicate as to whether it is a preliminary inquiry report under Rule-4 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 or it is final inquiry report under Rule-5. Be that as it may, District Magistrate issued a charge sheet dated 18.05.2016 to the petitioner in respect of embezzlement of the amounts in aforementioned three projects of village Meghan Majra, hamlet of village Salarpura. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 01.06.2016. There is nothing on the record that after reply of the petitioner any inquiry was conducted or order was passed. Recovery of the amount from the petitioner before inquiry/or passing order after considering his reply is illegal. On this ground writ petition of Dipansu Saini was allowed by this Court. 9. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of District Panchayat Raj Officer, dated 18.05.2016 and 13.06.2016 are set aside. District Magistrate is given liberty to pass fresh order after considering reply of the petitioner, in accordance with law.