Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—The petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sapnawat, District Ghaziabad. By an order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner had been ceased. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 16368 of 2008 in which a detailed reasoned interim order dated 1.4.2008 had been passed whereby the effect and operation of the order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad had been stayed. The said writ petition is pending and the interim order is also continuing. While passing the interim order dated 1.4.2008, this Court had permitted that the formal enquiry may go on and be concluded expeditiously. Thereafter, a final enquiry report was submitted on 12.5.2008. The District Magistrate then issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 17.5.2008, which was served on the petitioner on 27.5.2008, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 11.6.2008. Then, by means of the impugned order dated 16.6.2008, passed under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the petitioner has been removed from the post of Pradhan. Challenging the order dated 16.6.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, this writ petition has been filed. Subsequently, by an order, passed under Section 12(J) of the Act, one Rajveer Singh has been nominated as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat in question.

2. I have heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramesh Pundir on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage. Sri A.S. Diwakar along with Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel, who appear for Rajveer Singh, have also been heard.

3. Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has summarized his arguments in five points, which are as follows :

(i) The complaint against the petitioner was not accompanied by an affidavit which is in violation of Rule 3 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1997’). It is also stated that the complaint was also not presented to the District Magistrate directly but to a political person, who had forwarded the same to the District Magistrate.

(ii) The preliminary enquiry in the matter had been directed by the Chief Development Officer and not by the District Magistrate and thus the same was in violation of Rule 2(c) read with Rule 4 of the Rules of 1997.

(iii) Both, preliminary enquiry as well as the final enquiry were conducted by the same enquiry officers, which is in violation of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1997.

(iv) Neither any charges were framed against the petitioner nor any opportunity to him to rebut the charges against him, which was in violation of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997.

(v) After submission of final enquiry report the petitioner had submitted his reply to the District Magistrate on 11.6.2008, which has not been considered while passing the impugned order.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that the preliminary enquiry as well as the final enquiry, were conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed and after it was found that the petitioner was guilty of embezzlement of over Rs.1.5 lacs, the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order, which is perfectly justified in law and does not call for interference by this Court.

5. Sri Diwakar, who appears on behalf of the nominated Pradhan, has however submitted that even if there was violation of the provision of any Rule, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as during the conduct of preliminary enquiry report, he had been given notice on 19.2.2008 and as such, this Court should not interfere with the impugned ord