The complaint did not need to strictly comply with the Enquiry Rules 1997, and the DM had the power to order a preliminary enquiry even without a proper complaint.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. N.C. Tripathi along with Suchita Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by respondent no.3 vide which the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner Pradhan has been ceased.

3. Brief facts of the case are; that the petitioner was elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Tedhi, Tehsil Dataganj, District Budaun, for a period of five years as per the elections held in the year 2021. It appears that a complaint was made against the petitioner regarding serious irregularities in the development work in the concerned village. The District Magistrate by order dated 28.12.2022 directed the District Minority Welfare Officer and Assistant Engineer to conduct a preliminary enquiry, report of which, was submitted before the District Magistrate, on the basis of which a show cause notice dated 04.05.2023 was issued to the petitioner as to why the petitioner’s financial and administrative powers should not be ceased in exercise of powers under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, (in short “Act of 1947”). The petitioner submitted an application dated 31.05.2023 requesting to provide copy of the complaint and enquiry report as referred in the show cause notice. The District Panchayat Raj Officer by letter dated 03.06.2023 sent one page complaint and photocopy of the preliminary enquiry report along with a covering letter dated 25.02.2023 directing her to file a reply within three days to the show cause notice dated 04.05.2023. As the petitioner required all the documents for submission of reply to the show cause notice, she applied for a copy of complaint along with affidavits filed in support thereof under Right to Information Act and she has been provided a copy of complaint along with all affidavits filed in support thereof vide covering letter dated 24.08.2023 issued by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Budaun. The petitioner submitted her reply in the first week of June, 2023 and the District Magistrate, without following the proper procedure as prescribed under law, has passed the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner-Pradhan, hence, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Sub Rule 5 of Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1947, (hereinafter referred as “Enquiry Rules 1997”) and submits that the complaint is not in accordance with the provisions as required under Rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 as Rule 3 Sub Clause (2) clearly contemplates that every complaint shall be accompanied by complainant’s own affidavit in support thereof and also affidavits of all persons from whom she claims to have received information of fact relating to acquisitions, verified before notary, together with all documents in her possession of power pertaining to acquisition.

5. As per Rule 3(3) of Enquiry Rules 1997, every complaint and affidavit as well as any Schedule or Annexures thereto shall be verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings and affidavits respectively. The complaint as made by the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid rules, thus, no proceedings under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act could have been initiated on such a complaint. In support of her submission, she has relied upon a judgement of this court passed in case of Kesari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2005 4 AWC 3536, wherein paragraph 167, Clause IX, the Court has concluded that as the complaint itself was not in accordance with the rules in view of the Clause 5 of Rule 3 of Rules of 1997, the Government could not have proceeded with the preliminary enquiry.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that as the mandatory requirement of filing the complaint su