JUDGMENT :

Ref:-Order on Impleadment Application

1. This impleadment application has been filed by one of the members of the Gaon Sabha.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that member of the Gaon Sabha cannot file a petition as he has no locus and has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumarvs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2013(1)ADJ 228.

3. In view of the above, the impleadment application is rejected.

Order on the writ petition

1. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishir Sripat, learned Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed by District Magistrate, District-Chitrakoot, seizing the administrative and financial power of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan and appointing three members committee for discharging the duty of Gram Pradhan.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was duly elected as Gram Pradhan in Village-Pahari Bujurg, District-Chitrakoot in the general panchayat election held in the year 2021. Subsequently, some irregularities were found in the maintenance of Gaushala by the concerned Block Development Officer, therefore, to enquire about the matter, the Block Development Officer entrusted the same to a three member committee and accordingly, the committee submitted a report/complaint by letter dated 29.11.2022 informing the Chief Development Officer, Chitrakoot that the Gram Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Adhikari are not taking interest in the work under the “Swachha Bharat Mission”. The aforesaid complaint dated 14.11.2022 as well as letter dated 29.11.2022 was submitted before the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, who in turn, vide order dated 30.12.2022, after recording prima facie satisfaction regarding dereliction of duty as per Section 95 (1) (g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947[“The Act, 1947”] (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1947''), issue notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation alongwith relevant documents within 28 days. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 30.12.2022, the petitioner submitted explanation through registered post dated 16.01.2023, which was received on 23.01.2023 in the office of District Magistrate, Chitrakoot. After considering the explanation as submitted by the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, based on the complaint of the Block Development Officer, found that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of misusing his post and he in totality failed to fulfil the duty and responsibilities attached to his post and passed the order dated 23.03.2023 seizing his power to exercise financial and administrative functions under ''the Act, 1947''. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Section 95 (1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which provides for the removal of Pradhan, the District Magistrate is empowered to pass an order of removal of an elected Pradhan and pending final enquiry, the financial and administrative functions are to be performed by a Committee consisting of three Members as indicated in the proviso of Section 95(1)(g) of “the Act, 1947”. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997[“The Rule, 1997] (hereinafter referred as “the Rule”), which provides for a complaint to be made by a complainant duly supported by an affidavit of the complainant as well as the affidavit of any other person from whom the information is said to have derived.

5. Rule 4 of the said Rules provides for the manner in which the District Magistrate shal