The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inquiry committee must have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry, and show cause notices must be issued with an open mind, failing which a writ petition would be maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 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 21.09.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj and a further prayer to direct the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order referred to above.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Thuthibari, Block Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, whose tenure had come to an end in the year 2020. A complaint was filed by one Vijay Kumar Maddheshiya alleging commission of financial irregularities in undertaking various development works in the concerned Gram Panchayat. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a three member committee, comprising of Consulting Engineer, Vikaskhand-Nichlaul, Maharajganj, Bhoomi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Maharajganj and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj, was constituted to inquire into the matter, which submitted its report on 02.09.2023. On the basis of which, the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 has been passed stating it to be a show cause notice vide which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,21,777/- in the account of Gram Nidhi-First within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the notice failing which, the same has to be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. The petitioner was also called upon to submit her reply within a week in response to the allegations so levelled. Subsequently, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Maharajganj has issued a reminder dated 17.10.2023 directing the petitioner to submit her reply within three days alongwith an evidence as to why the financial and administrative powers not be ceased by appointing a three members' committee in terms of Section 95(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the three member committee has submitted the inquiry report dated 02.09.2023 without jurisdiction as it is not competent in law to hold such an inquiry for the purpose of imposition of surcharge in view of the legislative mandate engrafted in Rules 256 and 257 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, inasmuch as such inquiry ought to have been conducted by the Chief Audit Officer, which as per the order of delegation made by him is now to be conducted by the District Audit Officer. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (1) ADJ 181 (DB).

5. He further submits that the District Magistrate, Maharajganj should have taken care to keep its mind open to the issues while seeking explanation from the petitioner but in the instant case, the impugned order has come to be passed in the name of show cause notice with premeditation which would not serve any purpose as the respondent no.2 issuing the alleged show cause notice has already made up its mind.

6. He further submits that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is not justified as it has been issued with premeditation as at the time of issuing the notice, it has been stated that if the explanation is not found satisfactory then the petitioner will have to deposit the aforesaid amount or the same has to be recovered as an arrear of land revenue, which means that the authorities have already made up their mind, while issuing the notice. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Bcits Pvt. Ltd. vs. Purvanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another reported in 2022 (7) ADJ 161 (DB) and he has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others report in (2006) 12 SCC 33.

7. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.