Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court, questioning the validity of order dated 27.6.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad, removing the petitioner from the post of Pradhan in exercise of authority vested under Section 95 (1)(g)(iii) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

2. Brief facts giving rise to instant writ petition are that petitioner was elected as Pradhan of village Ahmadnagar, Jaitwara, post and Block Kundarki, District Moradabad. Complaints were made in respect of functioning of the petitioner as Pradhan. Preliminary enquiry was made and thereafter show cause notice was issued by the District Magistrate based on the report dated 29.11.2007. Petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice and claimed to have demanded documents. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 626 of 2008 was filed by petitioner, wherein an interim order was passed in favour of petitioner on 8.1.2008. However, ongoing formal enquiry against petitioner was directed to be concluded expeditiously, without being influenced by the observations made in the said order. On 11.1.2008 an order was passed suspending financial as well as administrative powers of petitioner. Against said order, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4624 of 2008 was filed, wherein an interim order was passed by this Court on 25.1.2008, mentioning therein that effect and operation of order dated 11.1.2008 would remain stayed. However, formal enquiry was directed to be concluded expeditiously. Charge sheet was issued to petitioner on 10.3.2008 to which reply was submitted by petitioner on 29.3.2008. On 3.4.2008, petitioner requested for opportunity of hearing. Thereafter order impugned has been passed at this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

3. Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case order impugned has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, and the procedure which has been provided for under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 have not been adhered to and at no point of time any date, time or place had been fixed for holding enquiry, thus, order impugned is unsustainable, and as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned Standing counsel as well as Sri K.K. Arora, Advocate, on the other hand, has contended with vehemence that in the present case decision which has been taken is strictly in consonance with the law, and no interference be made with the impugned order in question.

5. With the consent of the parties, present writ petition is being heard and decided, as the respondents have chosen not to file counter affidavit, rather have requested for deciding the matter on the basis of the impugned order as well as pleadings available on record.

6. In order to appreciate the respective arguments, the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and Rules 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 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 Panchayat if he—

(i) absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings;

(ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude;

(iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by this Act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest;

(iii-a) has taken benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section 11 or sub-section (3) of Section 12, as the case may be,