Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the order dated 7.4.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Mahoba, proceeding to place the petitioner under suspension in exercise of its authority under the First proviso of Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and constituting three members Committee to look after the administrative and financial matter of the Gram Panchayat.

2. Petitioner contested the election of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Purwa Jaitpur and was elected. Petitioner claims to have been performing and discharging duties as Pradhan as envisaged under law. Complaint was made that during the course of inspection it has been found that mid-day meal has not been provided in Primary School and in this regard inquiries were made by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kulpahar, District Mahoba on 27.3.2008 and thereafter matter was reported to District Magistrate, Mahoba and District Magistrate, Mahoba on 7.4.2008 has proceeded to pass order impugned ceasing financial and administrative power.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that Tehsildar, Kulpahar on 27.3.2008 made complaint against Pradhan when he found on his inspection on 19.2.2008 that the petitioner was committing various irregularities in discharge of its duties. Deputy District Magistrate Kulpahar district Mahoba on 27.3.2008 made inspection himself and found irregularities in preparation of mid day meal, as such submitted report to District Magistrate Mahoba and District Magistrate after considering the report submitted passed order in question, as such there is no infirmity in the view which has been taken.

4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and taking plea that order passed is vitiated as Collector has not issued any order appointing Inquiry Officer to make preliminary inquiry and report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is in the shape of complaint to initiate proceedings against the petitioner and same cannot be treated as preliminary inquiry report as such action taken is unjustifiable.

5. Supplementary affidavit has also filed stating therein that complaint cannot be treated to be preliminary inquiry report as such entire proceedings are vitiated.

6. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

6-A. Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing alongwith Sri Manoj Gautam, Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case petitioner has been divested of exercising financial and administrative powers otherwise than in accordance with the procedure provided under first proviso to Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997, as such exercise of authority in the present case is nothing but misuser of authority as such action taken is unsustainable.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that District Magistrate has ample authority to take action as is envisaged in 1997 Rules as per report referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 or “otherwise” and same clearly enjoins the District Magistrate to take action as such no fault can be found in the action taken once prima facie material is there.

8. In order to appreciate the respective arguments, the provisions of Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and Rules 3, 4 and 5 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 are being quoted below :

“U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947

“95. Inspection.—(1) The State Government may—

(a)..........

(b).........

(c)........

(d).........

(e)......

(f)........

(g) remove a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or member of a Gram Pachayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchaya