JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

The petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sonakpur Dehat, Vikas Khand, Moradabad, District - Moradabad. On 30.1.2018, a report was submitted by S.D.M. Sadar by which it was, prima facie, found that the petitioner was guilty of allegations made against him in various complaints which were placed before the officials of the State. When it was, prima facie, found that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged complaints which were made against him, then a show cause notice was issued to him on 26.2.2018. To this notice the petitioner had submitted his reply and an enquiry was undertaken by the Additional District Magistrate (E) who was appointed the Enquiry Officer. He submitted his report on 11.4.2018. Consequentially, an order of removal was passed by the District Magistrate 19.4.2018, which was challenged in writ petition being Writ - C No. 17011 of 2018. This writ petition was allowed on 30.5.2018 and the order dated 19.4.2018 was set aside and the District Magistrate was required to embark upon an enquiry afresh in the manner it was contemplated under Rules 5 & 6 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, (hereinafter called as 'the 1997 Rules').

2. The District Magistrate once again appointed the ADM (F & R) on 14.6.2018 an Enquiry Officer, who by means of a communication dated on 20.6.2018, communicated to the petitioner the charges which he was required to meet. The relevant portion of the communication dated 20.6.2018 which contained the charges against the petitioner is being reproduced here as under:-

^^D;ksa u xzke lekt dh Hkwfe ij voS/k dCtk djus ,oa xzke lekt dh laifRr dks {kfr igqpkus] iz/kku in dk nq:i;ksx djus ds vkjksi esa vkidks m0iz0 iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&95 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼N½ ds mi izLrj ¼3½ esa of.kZr izkfo/kkuksa ds rgr iz/kku in ls gVk fn;k tk,A

vr% vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mijksDr vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa ,d lIrkg ds vUnj viuk Li"Vhdj.k ¼e; lk{;ksa½ lfgr izLrqr djsaA ;fn vki O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj pkgrs gSa rks fnukad 27-06-2018 dks iwokZUg 10-00 cts mifLFkr gksA^^

3. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply on the date fixed i.e. on 27.6.2018. A report on the basis of the enquiry was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 1.10.2018 before the District Magistrate. A show cause notice with regard to the quantum of punishment was issued to the petitioner on 4.10.2018 on the basis of the enquiry as was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Ultimately, the petitioner again replied on 17.10.2018. Thereafter, the final order of removal under Section 95 (1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act was passed on 22.11.2018. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

4. The petitioner has made the following submissions:-

I. The petitioner has submitted that after the report dated 30.1.2018 was submitted by the ADM (E) no charges were framed as per the provisions of Rule 6(2) (a) of the 1997 Rules. There were no distinct articles of charge supplied to the petitioner. No statement of imputation in support of each article of charge was also supplied. Learned counsel further submitted that the list of documents which would substantiate the charges was also not supplied. No list of witnesses who would depose against the petitioner was also prepared.

II. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though a date for submitting the reply to the show cause notice dated 20.6.2018 was fixed there was no further date or place fixed for any further enquiry.

III. No date for leading of oral evidence was fixed. The petitioner had no knowledge as to whether there were any witnesses who were to depose against him and whether they were to be examined and, thereafter, cross-examined.

IV. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 29.6.2018, 13.7.2018 and 17.10.2018 the petitioner had categorically by means of various communications, informed the Enquiry Officer that the enquiry was not being co