Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri P.N. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.R. Misra, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri H.K. Shukla, for the contesting respondent No. 5 and the Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents.

2. The petitioner is an elected Pradhan and, by the impugned order dated 13.9.2008, his financial powers has been ceased and, a committee of three members of the Gram Panchayat has been constituted comprising of three members of the Gram Panchayat to exercise the powers of the Pradhan under the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Since factual controversy is not involved, the present writ petition is being disposed of with the consent of the parties at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter-affidavit.

3. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner filed his objection to the preliminary report and thereafter the prescribed authority, namely, the District Magistrate passed an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.

4. Upon hearing the parties at some length, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of Rule 5 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997.

"5. Enquiry Officer.—Where the State Government is of the opinion, on the basis of the report referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 or otherwise that an enquiry should be held against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or Member under the proviso to clause (g) of sub-Section (1) of Section 95, it shall forthwith constitute a committee envisaged by proviso to clause (g) of sub-Section (1) of Section 95 of the Act and by an order ask an Enquiry Officer, other than the Enquiry Officer nominated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, to hold the enquiry.”

5. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it is clear that upon the submission of the preliminary enquiry report under Rule 4 of the Rules, the prescribed authority is required to record its subjective satisfaction, namely, that an inquiry is required to be held against the Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act, and only then it can issue an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act and by an order ask the enquiry officer to hold an enquiry under Rule 6 of the Rules.

6. In the present case, there is no finding of the District Magistrate regarding its subjective satisfaction that an enquiry should be held against the Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act nor an order has been passed directing the enquiry officer to hold such enquiry. Consequently, the impugned order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner is not sustainable and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

7. It would be open to the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act read with the Rules of 1997.

—————