Hon’ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard Sri R.C. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Sri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Advocate has filed Caveat in the instant matter on behalf of one RafatUllah, who happens to be a complainant in the matter.

3. Since the complainant has not been impleaded in the array of opposite parties and as per the dictum of this Hon’ble Court passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 177 of 2008; Amin Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ADJ 559 (DB), the complainant is not a necessary party, therefore, the counsel for the complainant is not required to be heard.

4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has impeached the order dated 15.3.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Balrampur under Section 95 (1) (g) (iii) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as the Act, 1947), whereby the District Magistrate, Balrampur ceased the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed the subsequent order dated 25.3.2017 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Balrampur, which is the consequent order to the order dated 15.3.2017, whereby it has been directed that till the conclusion of the final inquiry, the three Members Committee, as indicated in the order dated 25.3.2017, would function and discharge the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Village-Gulriha, Post-Badalpur, Block and Tehsil-Tulsipur, District-Balrampur. The petitioner was elected as Village-Pradhan in the month of December, 2015.

6. One Mr. Rafatullah son of Mr. Abdul Qayum, who is a resident of Village-Gulriha, Tehsil-Tuslipur, District-Balrampur has made a complaint against the petitioner on 11.3.2016 to the District Magistrate, Balrampur alleging therein that the petitioner is having serious criminal antecedents and he has got a long criminal history. It has also been stated in the complaint that the petitioner has not submitted his nomination papers, on 17.11.2015, properly and has concealed so many relevant facts. It has also been alleged that the petitioner has been misusing and embezzling the public funds by adopting illegal method. The aforesaid complaint dated 11.3.2016 has been filed supporting with an affidavit.

7. The aforesaid complaint was firstly inquired by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tuslipur and the Block Development Officer-Tulsipur vide joint inquiry dated 17.7.2016, but thereafter, the aforesaid matter was inquired by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Balrampur. The aforesaid fact is indicated in the inquiry report dated 22.7.2016, which provides that since the inquiry, under Section 2 (c) of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (here-in-after referred to as the Enquiry Rules, 1997), should have been conducted by the District Level Officer and as the Sub-Divisional Officer and Block Development Officer were not the District Level Officers, therefore, the inquiry in question was directed to be conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Balrampur.

8. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 22.7.2016 to the District Magistrate, Balrampur holding that in respect of concealment of the facts while filing the nomination papers by the petitioner, no cognizance can be taken in respect of the allegation Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, inasmuch as such complaint should have been made before the competent authority within a period of six months from the date of nomination. It has also been indicated in the inquiry report that the other allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and baseless, however, some criminal cases which are pending against the petitioner wherein one case No. 72/1992 is pending under Sections 465, 467 and 420 I.P.C. is serious in nature and comes within a purview of moral turpitude. As far as misuse of public funds in getting the Crematorium con