Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the show-cause notice dated 23.4.2012 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) under Section 95(1)(g) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 issued by the Chief Development Officer, Jalaun at Orai and the order dated 24.7.2012 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Jalaun at Orai as well as the order dated 9.8.2012 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is an elected Pradhan of village Uncha Gaon, Block Nadigaon, District Jalaun at Orai. On a complaint in connection with embezzlement of money allotted to the Village Panchayat for implementation of MANREGA scheme made by respondent No. 6, the Chief Development Officer, Jalaun at Orai vide order dated 17.12.2011, constituted a Committee consisting of three members, namely, Sri Mohd. Gaffar, Up-Ziladhikari, Konch, Sri Chitrasen Singh, Khand Vikas Adhikari, Dakor and Sri Rajpal Singh, Sahayak Zila Panchayat Adhikari for holding an enquiry. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report dated 1.3.2012 finding the petitioner guilty of allegations in the complaint. A show-cause notice was issued against him to submit his explanation within 15 days. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition against the show-cause notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the objections submitted by the petitioner were ever decided nor any notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, who was the affected party, though on the other hand, the complainant was heard and permitted to give evidence before the Enquiry Committee. Even the Chief Development Officer has written to the Joint Development Commissioner (respondent No. 7) that the report has been submitted by the Enquiry Committee without there being any technical member in its composition as such the matter be referred to the Technical Audit Committee, yet the Joint Development Commissioner has rejected such objection of the Chief Development Officer vide his communication dated 9.8.2012. Therefore, the procedure adopted is wholly illegal, unjustified, without any reasons and the order has been passed without considering the objections of the petitioner.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire enquiry has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is stated that complaint ought not to have been entertained the complainant had no right to be heard. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance upon the following case laws.

1. Smt. Kesari Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(4) AWC 3563;

2. Amin Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ADJ 559 (DB);

3. Dharam Raj v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(108) RD 689; and

4. Narendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(1) ADJ 228.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the rulings cited by the petitioner are not applicable. Upon facts he has submitted that petitioner was found guilty of committing financial irregularities and accordingly, show-cause notice was given to him in exercise of powers under Section 95(g)(1) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It was also directed that the FIR also be lodged against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case; that mere perusal of application for re-enquiry dated 28.7.2012 will indicate that the petitioner also had never objected that there was no technical member in the Enquiry Committee whereas the fact of the case is that the Assistant District Panchayat Raj Officer (Technical) was one of the members of the Enquiry Committee, who is technical officer. The petitioner was afforded opportunity to