The District Magistrate had no authority to restore the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan until the final enquiry report was obtained and the charges against the Pradhan were not made out.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

( 2 ) PETITIONER, Govind Prasad, claims himself to be a member of Gram Sabha and alleges to have made a complaint in accordance with the Provisions of Rule 4 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 1997 rule) against the Pradhan of Village-Tarkulwa Tiwari, Block Partawal, Tehsil, Sadar, maharajganj, namely, Tabirunnisha, respondent No. 5. On the basis of the complaint so made by the petitioner a preliminary enquiry was conducted under order of the District Magistrate by an enquiry officer (Sub Divisional Magistrate), nominated by the District Magistrate under Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by.-the Sub divisional Magistrate on 14th December, 2002, the District Magistrate was satisfied that the gram Pradhan was involved in financial embezzlement and other irregularities. Accordingly an order under Section 95 (1) (g) proviso was passed by the District Magistrate seizing the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan. District Magistrate passed an order dated 11th october, 2004 appointing three members committee under the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g)proviso of Panchayat Raj Act. The District Magistrate by an order dated 16th November, 2003 nominated District Development Officer, Maharajganj for conducting the final enquiry under rule 5 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry rules, 1997. Before the final enquiry could be completed the District Magistrate on the basis of a review application filed by the Pradhan passed an order dated 8th November, 2004, whereby the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan were restored. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.

( 3 ) THE Court at the very outset records its dissatisfaction with regard to the manner in which Sri h. S. N. Tripathi, counsel for the respondent-pradhan tried to confuse this Court by producing a copy of the letter of the District Magistrate, Maharajganj dated 6th December, 2003. On the basis of the said letter it was contended that the District Social Welfare Officer, who was appointed as enquiry officer by the District Magistrate in pursuance of a complaint made by the petitioner against the Pradhan, has already completed the final enquiry and has submitted enquiry report before the District Magistrate. On the basis of said final enquiry report, the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan were restored. The Court is sorry to note that the said piece of letter was not filed along with an affidavit. The Court time and again called upon the counsel for the respondent to file the letter along with an affidavit. The counsel for the respondent refused to do so and wasted that matter be decided finally after taking into consideration the said letter. In the interest of justice the Court through at proper to read the contents of the letter relied upon by the counsel for the Pradhan. A perusal of the said letter reveals that the final enquiry has not been concluded in respect of the complaints of the petitioner, yet by the nominated enquiry officer. Advocates are officers of the Court and they are expected to make submissions and produce evidences, which are factually correct. The attitude of the Advocates to somehow or the other obtain an order from the Court is a matter of serious concern. This Court fails to understand the attitude adopted by the respondents Advocate as noticed above, precious time of the Court wasted during such deliberations, could have been used for some other useful constructive purpose. MERITS:

( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate could have revoked the order dated 23rd September,