R. R. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) PERUSED the averments made in the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE present petition is posted today for admission, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I propose to decide it on merits at admission stage.

( 4 ) BY filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a relief for quashing the order impugned dated 2. 11. 2001 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and order dated 26. 12. 2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Pillbhit under Section 95 (1) (g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-10 to the writ petition, on the ground, inter alia, that no preliminary enquiry has been held against him by District Panchayat Raj Officer under the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and Members) Enquiry, Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1997) to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that he has committed financial and other irregularities and no opportunity of showing cause has been afforded to him against the action proposed within the meaning of second proviso of Section 95 (1) (g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, (hereinafter referred as Act of 1947), which provides that no action shall be taken under Clause (f) and Clause (g) except after giving to the body or person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed. By order dated 2. 11. 2001, the petitioner is deprived of to perform his financial and administrative powers and functions whereas by order dated 26. 12. 2001, three members Committee is ordered to be appointed to perform financial and administrative powers and functions until petitioner is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry.

( 5 ) IT is evident from a bare perusal of the order impugned in the present case that the preliminary enquiry was not held by the District Panchayat Raj Officer under the statutory Rules, 1997 nor the explanation of the petitioner was called for and considered by District Magistrate before passing the impugned orders as envisaged under Section 95 (1) (g) of the said Act. I am of the view that both the orders Impugned are per se illegal on the ground discussed hereinbelow.

( 6 ) RULE 4 of the Rules of 1997 provides that District Magistrate on whom power of State government is delegated on the receipt of complaint or report referred to in Rule 3 or otherwise order to the District Panchayat Raj Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out if there is prima Jade case for a formal final enquiry in the matter. Under Sub-rule (2)of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1997, the District Panchayat Raj Officer is to conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit his report to the District Magistrate within fortnight of his having been so ordered by District Magistrate.

( 7 ) RULE 5 of the Rules, 1997, further provides that where the District Magistrate is of the opinion, on the basis of the report referred to in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 or otherwise that a final enquiry should be held against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or Member under the proviso to Clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95, it shall, by an order, ask the Enquiry Officer to hold the final enquiry. The expression enquiry Officer has been defined under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1997. The Rule 2 (c) of the said Rules reads as under ; "2 (c) enquiry Officer means an officer not below the rank of District Panchayat Raj Officer, appointed as such, by the State Government. " it is not disputed before this Court that power of State Government is delegated to all District magistrates of State.

( 8 ) A close scrutiny of Section 95 (1) (g) of Act of 1947 reveals that under the aforesaid section, the first action is contemplated to remove a Pradhan, Up Pradhan or Member of a Gram panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samitl or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or sarpanch or a Nyaya Panchayat on the grounds enumerated u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document