Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who was declared elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat-Dakani Rajpuri, Block-Bhuta, District Bareilly in the elections held in 2010, has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 7th July, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Bareilly by which the financial and administrative powers have been ceased under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and a direction for constitution of a Three Member Committee to exercise such powers has been given.

2. It is stated that a complaint was filed by Mohd. Taufeeq on 18th April, 2012 before the Block Development Officer with the allegation that illegalities had been committed by the Pradhan in the construction of the Rajiv Gandhi Sansadhan Sewa Kendra. The Block Development Officer constituted a committee consisting of the Technical Assistant at the Block Level, Sector Prabhari and the Junior Engineer to enquire into the allegations levelled against the Pradhan in the said complaint dated 18th April, 2012. A report dated 3rd May, 2012 was submitted by the aforesaid committee and this report was forwarded by the Block Development Officer to the District Magistrate by the letter dated 10th May, 2012. It is on the basis of the said report that the District Magistrate issued the notice dated 30th May, 2012 to the Pradhan calling upon him to file a reply within ten days as to why the financial and administrative powers may not be ceased and a Three Member Committee may not constituted to discharge such functions. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 11th June, 2012 with documents to substantiate that the charges levelled against him were factually not correct. The District Magistrate, however, passed the order dated 7th July, 2012 for ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act and also issued directions for constitution of a Three Member Committee to discharge such powers as the Pradhan was prima facie found guilty of the financial irregularities in the preliminary enquiry.

The impugned order dated 7th July, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate mentions that the complaint filed by Mohd. Taufeeq was got enquired through the Block Development Officer and an enquiry report dated 10th May, 2012 was submitted with the recommendation that action should be taken against the Pradhan. The order further mentions that a show-cause notice dated 30th May, 2012 was issued to the Pradhan to which he submitted a reply on 11th June, 2012 and denied the allegations but the reply was not satisfactory as the Pradhan did not produce sufficient evidence in support of his defence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the District Magistrate deserves to be set aside for the reason that the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the committee constituted by the Block Development Officer could not have been made the basis for ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a factually incorrect statement has been made in the impugned order by the District Magistrate that the enquiry was got conducted through the Block Development Officer whereas infact the Block Development Officer had formed a committee of three members and the report submitted by the committee constituted by him on the complaint filed by Mohd. Taufeeq was forwarded to the District Magistrate. Learned counsel also submitted that the preliminary enquiry which could have been made the basis for passing an order under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act was required to be made either by the District Panchayat Raj Officer or a ‘district level officer’ as contemplated under Rule 2(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) or the District Magistrate himself. In support of this