Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner was elected as a Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Vait, Block Shimbhawali, District Hapur in October, 2010. On 7th April, 2012, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed a complaint, which remained pending, and accordingly, the said respondents filed a writ petition No. 49571 of 2012, which was disposed of by an order dated 25th September, 2012 directing the District Magistrate to enquire into the complaint, if it was in accordance with Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan and Up Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997). Based on the direction of the Court, the District Magistrate initiated an enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. A preliminary enquiry report was submitted on the basis of which, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 28th February, 2013 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner and simultaneously appointing a three member committee to discharge the financial and administrative powers. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed writ petition No. 13107 of 2013, which was allowed by an order dated 8th March, 2013. The impugned order was set aside and the Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the matter afresh.

2. The District Magistrate, thereafter, passed a fresh order dated 30th March, 2013 again ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, against which, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 20758 of 2013, which was disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate to get the final enquiry concluded under the Rules of 1997. The petitioner preferred a special appeal No. 756 of 2013, which was dismissed as not maintainable.

3. Based on the said order of the High Court, the District Magistrate initiated a final enquiry purported to be under Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules 1997 and, upon the submission of the enquiry report, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 17th June, 2013 directing recovery of Rs. 1,16,358.16 paise from the petitioner and further ceasing the financial powers. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate directing the recovery of the amount and ceasing the financial powers, has filed the present writ petition.

4. The complainant, respondent Nos. 5 and 6, being aggrieved by that portion of the order allowing the petitioner to exercise the administrative powers, has filed the writ petition No. 36438 of 2013. Both the writ petitions have been connected and are being decided together.

5. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri W.H. Khan, the learned counsel assisted by Sri S.M. A. Abdi, the learned counsel for the complainant and Sri R.B. Pradhan, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Magistrate has committed a manifest error in passing the impugned order. In the first instance, the procedure envisaged under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997 was never followed, inasmuch, no charge-sheet was issued nor any specific charges were framed nor was the petitioner invited to reply to the said charges, and consequently, there has been a glaring violation of the procedure envisaged under Rule 6 as well as the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submitted that while exercising the powers under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the District Magistrate could at best remove the petitioner from the post of the Pradhan, but could not issue any order for recovery of the amount and that any recovery of the amount could only be passed while exercising the powers under Section 27 of the said Act, which in the instant case has not been done.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the District Magistrate upon an enquiry made against the Pradhan could either remove him from the said post o