JUDGMENT :

This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2021, dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The petitioner-appellant instituted the writ petition, giving rise to this appeal, asking for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj to decide proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), pending before him against respondent No. 3, Chamela Devi, the Village Pradhan, within some stipulated period of time as the Court may determine.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, Chamela Devi was elected as the Village Pradyan of Village Shivlal Ka Pura, Post Gohri, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj in the elections held in the year 2016. It is the petitioner-appellant's case that respondent No. 3 committed misfeasance in office during her tenure. The petitioner-appellant, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the writ petitioner, instituted a Public Interest Litigation No. 1944 of 2020, Shiv Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, seeking a direction to the District Authorities to make an inquiry into those acts of misfeasance alleged, and cause an FIR to be lodged for the offence of the misappropriation and embezzlement of public moneys. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.2.2021 disposed of the writ petition virtually dismissing it on the ground of availability of an efficacious statutory remedy. That remedy was said to be available under Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 (for short, 'the Rules of 1997'). In fact, the said rules are referable to the powers available to the State Government, or on its behalf with the District Magistrate under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947.

3. The writ petitioner on 10.5.2021 moved a complaint to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947, complaining of misdemeanour in office against respondent No. 3, involving defalcation of public money. There was inaction on the District Magistrate's part to proceed further on the said complaint. This led the writ petitioner to move the present petition, seeking a mandamus in the terms prayed.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that where any financial irregularities have been committed by a Pradhan, the District Magistrate ought to deprive her of her financial powers, after the necessary preliminary inquiry, with the ceasure of powers continuing until the Pradhan is exonerated in the final inquiry. It was also argued before the learned Single Judge, as would appear from the impugned judgment, that Section 27 of the Act of 1947 envisages proceedings by way of surcharge. These proceedings are designed to recover loss, waste or misappropriation of money or property belonging to the Gaon Sabha. The Prescribed Authority has been entrusted with the duty to fix the amount of surcharge, which shall be recovered from the Pradhan or the other person concerned by the Collector.

5. The State, on the other hand, contended that respondent No. 3 was in office as the Village Pradhan until 2.5.2021, and after fresh elections to the post of Pradhan in the State of Uttar Pradesh were held in the month of April, 2021, respondent No. 3 has been replaced by another incumbent. It was emphasized that the complaint moved by the writ petitioner was on 10.5.2021, that is, after respondent No. 3 had demitted office. As such, the State or its Authorities, including the District Magistrate, could not proceed under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act of 1947, read with the Rules of 1997. It was, particularly, argued that it is only in an audit or inquiry that facts are discovered to show that any sum of money has been misappropriated, and, thereupon, proceedings for surcharge can be initiated against a Pradhan under Section 27 of the Act of 1947. It was also contended on behalf of