Learned counsel for petitioner informs that he does not want to to file rejoinder affidavit as purely legal questions are involved in the writ petition which can be decided even in absence of the same, learned Standing Counsel also agrees, as such, with the consent of parties' counsel, the writ petition has been heard finally.

Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Sareen, learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as Mr. Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 7 and perused the record.

The writ petition has been filed by an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Tar Gaon, Development Block Bichchiya, District Unnao challenging the order dated 04.03.2013 of District Magistrate, Unnao levying a sum of Rs. 2,99,461/- as surcharge and directing for recovery of the said amount and further ceasing of the financial and administrative powers of petitioner as Pradhan in exercise of powers under Section 95 (1) (g) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order reveals that the same has been passed taking note of inspection report dated 13.8.2012 submitted by the District Development Officer, District Unnao with regard to works undertaken under the Scheme known as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and other works undertaken during the tenure of petitioner as Pradhan and on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the committee comprising of (i) District Panchayat Raj Officer, Unnao, (ii) Blcok Development Officer, Development Block, Bichchiya, Unnao and (iii) Assistant Engineer, District Rural Development Agency, Unnao appointed by the Chief Development Officer, Unnao. The said report is said to be based on random checking undertaken by the said three member committee on 20.12.2012 and was communicated to the District Magistrate, Unnao under the covering letter dated 24.1.2013. As per the said report, it prima facie reveals misuse/wrong expenditure done by the petitioner and the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Tar Gaon, Bichchiya, Unnao and, as such, the same amounts to misuse of funds together with misuse of authority.

It is submitted that in furtherance of the inspection report dated 13.8.2012 and the complaint made by Member of Legislative Assembly, the Chief Development Officer, Unnao vide letter dated 25.5.2012 had appointed a three member committee comprising of (i) District Panchyat Raj Officer, Unnao, (ii) Block Development Officer, Development Block Bichchiya, Unnao and (iii) Assistant Engineer, District Rural Development Agency, Unnao for holding preliminary enquiry. The aforesaid enquiry committee undertook the spot inspection on 20.12.2012 making the random checking of work under MGNREGA scheme. It was on the basis of said enquiry report that a show cause notice dated 02.02.2013 along with copy of the enquiry report was issued to petitioner to show cause. The petitioner had submitted an explanation dated 20.2.2013 denying the allegations. It was thereafter that the impugned order levying surcharge and ceasing financial and administrative powers was passed.

Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that so far as the impugned order as it relates to levying of surcharge and direction for recovery from the petitioner is concerned, it has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 27 (1) of the Act. The Uttar Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 1947 Rules'), particularly Rule 256 provides that the Chief Audit Officer shall submit the report relating to the allegations of misuse of funds and consequence negligence or misconduct of Pradhan after calling an explanation from the Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Member, Officer or Servant of the Gram Panchayat and it is only on the basis of report of the Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies and Panchayats that a surcharge can be levied.

The contention is that in the present case s