By the Court—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 1.12.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 29.3.2000 (Annexures-6 and 6-A) filed along with the writ petition.

2. By the two impugned orders in the writ petition dated 29.3.2000, the administrative and financial powers of the writ petitioner-appellant were ceased under Section 95 (1) (g) proviso of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and by another order of the same date, i.e. 29.3.2000, it was held that the writ petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1,09,606/- and consequently the half amount be recovered from the Pradhan-petitioner and half amount from the Gram Panchayat Adhikari.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the aforesaid two orders contended before the learned Single Judge that the inquiry was not held in accordance with the inquiry rules, namely, U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997.

4. Learned Single Judge by his impugned judgment held that a show cause notice was given to the appellant to submit her reply and the writ petitioner has submitted her written reply. After consideration of which, the District Magistrate has directed that the half amount be recovered from the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that the inquiry was not held in accordance with the rules. He further submitted that in view of the interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition, the appellant continued to function as Pradhan of the Village, but now the term of office has come to an end.

5. We have considered the submissions and perused the records.

6. With regard to Annexure-6 to the writ petition, i.e. the order ceasing financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan, by virtue of expiry of the term of the Pradhan the relief with regard to the above said order has become infructuous and it is not necessary to express any opinion with regard to the aforesaid. The another order dated 29.3.2000 (Annexure-6-A) is still surviving by which recovery was directed to be made from the appellant to the tune of Rs. 54,803. The second order dated 29.3.2000 directing for recovery was passed under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which provides as under :

“27. Surcharge.—(1) Every Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of a [Gram Panchayat] every member of a [Gram Panchayat] or of a Joint Committee or any other committee constituted under this Act and every Sarpanch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Panch of a Nyaya Panchayat shall be liable to surcharge for the loss, waste or misapplication of money or property [belonging to the Gram Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat] as the case may be, if such loss, waste or misapplication is direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct while he was such Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Member, Sarpanch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Panch :

Provided that such liability shall cease to exist after the expiration of ten years from the occurrence of such loss, waste or misapplication, or five years from the date on which the person liable ceases to hold his office, whichever is later.

(2) The prescribed authority shall fix the amount of the surcharge according to the procedure that may be prescribed and shall certify the amount to the Collector who shall, on being satisfied that the amount is due, realise it as if it were an arrear of land revenue.

(3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority fixing the amount of surcharge may, within thirty days of such order, appeal against the order to the State Government or such other appellate authority as may be prescribed.

(4) Where no proceeding for fixation and realisation of surcharge as specified in sub-section (2) is taken the State Government may institute a suit for compensation for such loss, waste or misapplication, agai