By the Court.—The appellant contested the elections of Village Pradhan governed by the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 with the name of Nanhey son of Lalla and was declared elected in the elections held in the year 2005. He was continuing as the elected Pradhan and it appears that certain allegations were made against his continuance in office upon which a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 31st October, 2008 by the District Magistrate, Rampur calling upon him to submit a response. After receipt of the reply, the appellant has been removed on the ground that his continuance stands curtailed as he had become incapable of acting as Pradhan upon having been found that he was an accused and charged for an offence involving moral turpitude in which he was charge sheeted and is on bail. The removal order was challenged on several grounds and the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 3.7.2010 on the admitted fact that the appellant had been charge sheeted in two criminal cases involving charges of moral turpitude.

2. This appeal is against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, contending that the entire enquiry as required under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, has not been conducted and, therefore, the same is vitiated.

3. Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant stood disqualified from continuing on the post being accused and charged for an offence involving moral turpitude could not have been a ground for his removal as the said charge related to an alleged offence committed prior to his election as Gram Pradhan in the present term.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 3, and Shri C.K. Parekh for respondent No. 4 have submitted that the facts, as stand admitted, disqualify the appellant from further continuing to act as Pradhan under the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) (ii) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in short ‘Act 1947’). They submit that the appellant having been found guilty of having suppressed this information at the time of his nomination and secondly having contested the election on a different name, his removal is fully justified and, therefore, the learned Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.

5. We had heard the matter on previous occasions and vide order dated 6th September, 2010, we had called upon the learned counsel for the parties to address the Court on the issue that, if an involvement in a criminal case for having been charged for an offence involving moral turpitude, is not a disqualification under Section 5-A of the Act 1947, then could such a ground be made available to dislodge an elected Gram Pradhan for an offence by way of removal under Section 95 (1) (g) (ii) for an offence that was allegedly committed prior to the election of such a person.

6. Before embarking upon to consider the legislative enactment and the provisions germane to the controversy, it would be apt to refer to the provisions relating to Panchayats which have been incorporated under the 73rd amendment to the Constitution contained in Chapter IX thereof. Article 243-F makes a provision for disqualifications, which may be gainfully reproduced hereunder :

“243-F. Disqualifications for membership.—(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of a Panchayat –

(a) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State concerned:

Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years;

(b) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State.

(2) If any question arises as to whether a member of a Panchayat has become