( 1 ) THE petitioner-Mahak Singh was elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Tana. Tehsil kairana, district Muzaffarnagar in the year 1995. A complaint was made against him by the co-villagers, namely. Harpal Singh, Jaidev Singh, and Rajendra Slngh on 27. 9. 1998 about certain illegalities having been committed by the Pradhan. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kairana made on the spot enquiries and submitted a preliminary report of enquiry through his letter dated 30. 10. 1998, prima facie, finding the petitioner guilty of the illegalities pointed out in the complaint. On the strength of the preliminary report dated 30. 10. 1998, submitted by the sub-Divisional Officer, the District Magistrate, Muzaffamagar contemplated action against the petitioner by Invoking the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and with a view to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, issued a charge-sheet dated 20. 11. 1998. a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It contained as many as seven charges against the petitioner. By the same chargesheet, the petitioner was required to submit his written explanation to the District Development Officer (for short ddo)/enquiry officer, Muzaffamagar within a period of 15 days and to inform him about the documentary and oral evidence which he would like to produce and the name of the witnesses, whom he will cross-examine. The petitioner was warned that in case no explanation is received within the time allowed, appropriate orders under Section 95 of the Act were likely to be passed against him. The petitioner submitted a reply/explanation dated 2. 12. 1998, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, denying all the seven charges levelled against him along with the documents supporting his explanation. On the date on which the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, the District Panchayat Raj Officer (for short d. P. R. O. ) passed an order, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was prevented from operating the Bank account and the Gram Panchayat Adhikari was directed to produce all the records of Gram Panchayat, Tana before him. Finding that all the charges against the petitioner stand established, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 13/14. 1. 1999. a copy of which is annexure-S. A. 1 to the Supplementary Affidavit, whereby he had removed the petitioner from the post of Pradhan under the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) (ii) (iii) (v) of the Act. It is this order of removal passed by the District Magistrate which has come to be challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is prayed that the impugned order dated 13/14. 1. 1999 be quashed and the respondents be commanded not to interfere with the performance of duties by the petitioner as duly elected Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat.

( 2 ) THE complainants Jai Dev Singh and Harpat Singh moved an application for their impleadment as party to the petition, which was allowed. On their behalf, a counter-affidavit has been filed by one Ombir Singh, to which a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. The other respondents, namely, the District Magistrate and the D. P. R. O. , Muzaffarnagar have failed to file any counter-affidavit, though it was agreed by all concerned that the writ petition be disposed of on merits.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri R. C. Gupta. learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri arjun Singhal. on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6,

( 4 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is that he has abused his position as Pradhan and he has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and that his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest. It is also reiterated th