Hon’ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has impeached the order dated 20.12.2017 bearing Order No. 8572/C, passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda, whereby the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, who is the Village Pradhan of Village-Tikaria, Development Block-Pandri Kripal, District-Gonda, have been ceased invoking the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as the “Act 1947”).

3. The grounds to assail the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 are that the said order has been issued in a sheer illegal and arbitrary manner de-horse the procedure prescribed in Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Rules, 1997 (here-in-after referred to as the 1997 Rules) and also in violation of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Re : Vivekanand Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2010(10) ADJ 1 (FB).

4. The petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Village-Tikaria, Development Block-Pandri Kripal, District-Gonda since December, 2015 and the tenure of the petitioner would be expiring in the month of December, 2020.

5. On the complaint of certain persons, the District Magistrate, Gonda constituted three members Enquiry Committee comprising the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gonda, Block Development Officer, Development Block-Pandri Kripal, District-Gonda and one Junior Engineer of Rural Engineering Services, Development Block-Pandri Kripal, District-Gonda for making preliminary inquiry/fact finding inquiry.

6. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid preliminary inquiry/fact finding inquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner inasmuch as she was not associated with inquiry. The aforesaid committee submitted the preliminary inquiry report on 3.11.2017, which is contained as Annexure 8 to the writ petition.

7. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 9.11.2017 was issued by the District Magistrate to the petitioner under Rule 256 of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 read with Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act, 1947 requiring the petitioner to submit her explanation/reply alongwith evidences within fifteen days. The aforesaid show-cause notice was served to the petitioner on 16.11.2017.

8. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted her tentative reply on 30.11.2017 in the absence of the complete material for furnishing her proper reply e.g. copy of the complaint/affidavit of the complainants and the statement of the complainants etc. The aforesaid reply has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. By means of reply dated 30.11.2017, the petitioner has vehemently submitted that since the relevant material has not been supplied to her, therefore, she was not able to furnish her proper reply. However, she submitted that the allegations levelled against her are false and frivolous as she has discharged her duties as Pradhan with utmost sincerity and honesty.

9. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act, 1947 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner.

10. Sri Mehrotra has submitted that the three Members Committee was not constituted strictly in terms of Rule 2 (c) of 1997 Rules as two out of three officers are not a District Level Officer. Besides, while passing the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 the dictum of Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Vivekanant Yadav (supra) was not followed. Now, the final enquiry report dated 15.1.2018 has been submitted by the Soil Conservation Officer, District-Gonda is in violation of Rules 6 and 7 of 1997 Rules, inasmuch as a mechanism is prescribed under Rule 6 of 1997 Rules for conducting the enquiry but the requirement