Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7.

2. The petitioner claims to be a social worker who has done various social works in the society and he belongs to the same Village Pijda of which the respondent No. 7 is the duly elected village Pradhan. The petition is not a Public Interest Litigation.

3. It is alleged that the respondent No. 7 was involved in huge financial irregularities and mis appropriation of funds pertaining to the Gram Panchayat. On the said complaints inquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer, Block Pardaha, District Mau who submitted a detailed enquiry report dated 29.11.2012.

4. As a result of the said inquiry, the District Magistrate in exercise of its power under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P Panchayat Raj Act 1947 vide orders dated 9.1.2012 ceased the financial and administrative power of respondent No. 7 with immediate effect and further constituted a three member committee for exercising financial and administrative power. It is further alleged that in the inquiry, the misappropriation of fund was proved and orders for recovery of the amount was passed.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate dated 9.1.2012 by which the financial and administrative power of respondent No. 7 was ceased and recovery was issued, the respondent No. 7 i.e the Gram Pradhan filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17237 of 2012 (Smt.Urmilla v. State of U.P and others), the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 6.4.2012 relying upon a Division Bench judgement dated 31.1.2006 in Indu Devi v. District Magistrate, Chitrakoot and others, 2006 (3) AWC 2787, held that no recovery can be made under Section 27 of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act 1947 unless final enquiry was concluded. The Court directed that the inquiry be concluded expeditiously and the Gram Pradhan shall cooperate in the said inquiry.

6. It is further stated that the respondent No. 7 filed another writ petition No. 17116 of 2013 (Smt.Urmila Singh v. State of U.P and others) assailing the order dated 9.1.2012 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act seizing the administrative and financial powers of the Pradhan. This Court vide order dated 22.3.2013 passed the following orders:

“Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The administrative and financial powers of the petitioner, who is an elected Pradhan, were ceased under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act,1947 by the order of the District Magistrate, Mau dated 9.1.2012.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter neither any final inquiry has been conducted nor final orders have been passed and the petitioner is continuing without her administrative and financial powers for the last 15 months. In the circumstances it has been prayed that a direction may be issued to the District Magistrate, Mau to get the final inquiry concluded and a final decision taken in the matter within a fixed time frame.

Considering the facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Mau to get the final inquiry concluded and the final decision taken under Section 95 (1) (g) of the said Act within a period of two months from today, failing which it would be open to the petitioner to apply before the District Magistrate, Mau to recall the order dated 9.1.2012 and in case the District Magistrate, Mau finds that the inquiry could not be concluded and the final decision could not be taken not on account of any delay being caused by the petitioner, he shall pass appropriate order withdrawing the earlier order dated 9.1.2012.”

7. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Inquiry Officer after conducting preliminary inquiry submitted report dated 9.4.2013 to the Chief Development Officer/District Magistrate which is part of the record. The Inquiry O