Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri K. Sahi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.K. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected writ petition and Sri Ghanshyamji Dwivedi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the authority is required to give a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the elected Pradhan before ceasing the financial and administrative powers under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. There is a divergence of opinion through various judgments of this Court. The Court, in the case of Smt. Sandhya Gupta v. District Magistrate, Auriaya and others, 1999 (90) RD 246, has held that an opportunity is required to be given to the Pradhan under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act before ceasing the financial and administrative powers. Similar view has been given in Chandrajit Raj Bhar v. District Magistrate, Pilibhit and others, 2002 (93) RD 139; Malti Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2623 (All); Mohd. Ahsan v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (7) ADJ 483 and Smt. Prabha Dixit v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (7) ADJ 171.

3. On the other hand, the Court has held in the case of Radha Krishna Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 AWC 1601, that no opportunity is required to be given to the Pradhan before ceasing the financial and administrative powers and that full opportunity would be financial and administrative powers and that full opportunity would be given under the second proviso when a formal inquiry is being made against the Pradhan for his removal. Similar view has been held by the Court in the cases of Smt. Radhili Devi v. District Magistrate, Padrauna and others, 1997 (1) AWC 251; Moti Lal v. District Magistrate, Lalitpur and others, 2003 (1) UPLBEC 736 and Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (3) ADJ 687, Sangeeta Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (6) ADJ 517, Bitana v. Collector, Sitapur and others, 2004 (2) AWC 1023 and Satish Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, 2004 (1) AWC 399.

4. Under the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, similar provision exists for the removal of the Adhyaksha. A Division Bench in the case of Smt. Chinta Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (4) ADJ 349, has held that an opportunity is required to be given to the Adhyaksha not only during the course of the preliminary enquiry but even before ceasing the financial and administrative powers. On the other hand, there are two decisions of a Division Bench of the Court under the said Act, holding that no opportunity is required to be given, namely, in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Meera Sankhwar and others, 2004 (3) UPLBEC 2179 and Mukesh Rajput v. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (4) ESC 1943.

5. The provisions of Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and Section 29 of the U.P. Kshettra and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam are analogous. For facility, the said provisions are quoted herein below :

“29. (1) If in the opinion of the State Government the Adhyaksha or the Up-Adhyaksha while acting in place of Adhyaksha wilfully omits or refuses to perform his duties or function under this Act or abuses the powers vested in him or is found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, [or because physically or mentally incapacitated for performing his duties] the State Government, after giving the Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity for explanation may by order remove him from office [and such order shall be final and not open to be questioned in a Court of law].

[Provided that where in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall ceased to exercise and perform t