The complaint against a Pradhan, supported by a public servant, need not strictly adhere to the procedure laid down in the 1997 Rules, and the State Government has the power to order a preliminary enquiry even without a formal complaint.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. N. Upadliaya, the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

( 2 ) BY this special appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 19. 12. 2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 54394 of 2002 (Moti Lal v. District Magistrate, lalitpur and Ors.) dismissing the writ petition.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are; the appellant is an elected Pradhan of Gram panchayat Kalyanapura, Block Virdha, Tahsil and District Lalitpur. Up- Pradhan made a complaint against the appellant. On the complaint a preliminary enquiry was directed. The complaint was signed by several other villagers along with Mangal Singh, Up-Pradhan. An affidavit was also filed by Mangal Singh sworn by Oath Commissioner, Land Conservation officer and Project Officer conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted preliminary enquiry report dated 13. 10. 2002. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the District magistrate dated 25. 10. 2002. The appellant submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The district Magistrate passed two orders on 27. 11. 2002 filed as Annexures-6 and 7 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. By first order dated 27. 11. 2002, the reply/explanation of the appellant was rejected and by second order passed on the same day the financial and administrative powers of the appellant were ceased and three members committee was constituted.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant raised following submissions in support of the appeal:

(i) The complaint filed by Up-Pradhan and signed by several villagers was not in accordance with Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 1997 Rules ). Complaint ought to have been supported by an affidavit duly sworn by public notary. The complaint being not in accordance with Rules, 1997, the order of the District Magistrate falls on the ground.

(ii) According to 1997 Rules, the preliminary enquiry is to be conducted by District Panchayat raj Officer and in the present case the preliminary enquiry has been conducted by Land conservation Officer and Project Officer who are not competent to conduct the preliminary enquiry.

(iii) The appellant was not informed about the preliminary enquiry nor the said enquiry was conducted in presence of the appellant, hence the whole proceedings are vitiated in law

.

( 5 ) SRI Ranvijai Singh, learned Standing Counsel, refuting the submissions of Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint filed against the appellant was not contrary to 1997 Rules. He submitted that complaint was made by Up- Pradhan of the village who is a public servant and by virtue of Rule 3, sub-rule (6), the procedure prescribed in Rule 3 is not attracted and there was no error in the complaint and the preliminary enquiry report has rightly been relied by the district Magistrate. The learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the District magistrate has found that prima facie the appellant is guilty of financial and other irregularities and power under proviso of Section 95 (l) (g) of UP. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has rightly been exercised. The learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that Rule 4 empowers the State Government to direct for preliminary enquiry on receipt of complaint or report referred to in Rule 3 or even "otherwise", hence there was no lack of power in the District Magistrate in directing the preliminary enquiry.

( 6 ) WE have considered the submissions of the Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

( 7 ) THE first submission of Counsel for the appellant is based on Rule 3 of 1997 Rules. Rules 3 and 4 which are relevant for the present purpose are quoted below:

"3. Procedure relating to complaints.- (1) Any person making a complaint against Pradhan or up-Pradhan may sen