By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Chinta Yadav, the elected Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat, Gorakhpur, challenging the order passed by the State Government in purported exercise of powers under proviso to Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), ceasing her administrative and financial powers.

2. Assailing the aforesaid order, Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Manish Kumar and Sri Upendra Misra, Advocates, submitted that the impugned order suffers from manifest error and lack of jurisdiction and authority, besides having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and also on non-existent facts, which even on plain reading, do not make any case for either continuing the formal enquiry or for ceasing the administrative and financial powers.

3. Elaborating the aforesaid argument the following points have been greatly stressed :

(1) The order dated 14.2.2008 has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, as such, it suffers from vice of violation of natural justice;

(2) The order cannot be said to have been passed within the prescription of proviso to Section 29 of the Act;

(3) The charges, 5 in number, though have been levelled but on the face of it, they do not constitute any charges, much less any serious charges, so as to deprive the petitioner of her statutory duties and performance of functions, being an elected Adhyaksha;

(4) The charges, as they are, have not at all been found to be proved and in the absence of any finding being recorded with respect to the charges being, prima facie, proved, there could not have been any material before the State Government to have its satisfaction for passing the order under the aforesaid proviso; and

(5) The manner in which the enquiry has been conducted by the District Magistrate, is not only violative of principles of natural justice in holding enquiry but the findings are based on surmises and conjectures and merely on suspicion.

4. Submission, therefore, is that right of the petitioner to exercise administrative and financial powers as elected Adhyaksh could not be snatched away by the State Government, otherwise than in accordance with law and as such, the order is per se bad and illegal, which deserves to be set aside.

5. In response, Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, has vehemently urged that none of the grounds asserted by the Counsel for the petitioner is tenable, the order having been passed by the State Government, on its satisfaction that on the basis of the report of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate, there is a case for holding formal enquiry and during the course of enquiry, the petitioner may not be allowed to exercise her powers, both, administrative and financial.

6. Further submission is that in a matter where the State Government is satisfied in the preliminary enquiry held by the District Magistrate on the directive of the State Government that the formal enquiry is to be conducted on the charges levelled against the Adhyaksha, the proviso to Section 29 does not require that any opportunity or prior opportunity should be given to such an elected Adhyaksha, neither in preliminary enquiry or by the State Government before passing the order of cessation of administrative and financial powers.

7. He further submitted that so far the charges are concerned, they make out a case of gross misconduct and misuse of the powers by the Adhyaksha, acting against the rules, on which, preliminary enquiry has been conducted, where the District Magistrate in his report found the charges, prima facie, proved and, therefore, this Court would not sit in appeal over the satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate or the State Government. He also submitted that the Court would also not reappreciate the evidence, which has been looked into by the D