The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a balance between the Act's purpose and the power given to the executive to intervene and suspend the working of a duly elected Gram Pradhan, emphasizing that cases involving simple irregularities, not involving intent or mens rea, may not warrant suspension of financial and administrative powers pending a full-fledged enquiry.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms Chhaya Gupta and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent and Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura whereby the petitioner's financial and administrative powers have been seized under the proviso to Section-95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

3. First, it has been submitted, the preliminary enquiry was conducted by an ineligible officer. Though, the Act mandates such enquiry to be conducted by a district level officer, in the present case that enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner (Self Employment) Mathura. That officer is not a district level officer but an out sourced employee. Second, it has been submitted, none of the complaints made against the petitioner was such as may have warranted the extreme action of suspension of financial and administrative powers of the petitioner who is a duly elected Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat-Manigarhi Bangar, Raipur, District-Mathura.

4. Third, even otherwise, with respect to the first charge, no defect was found in the laying of interlocking tiles. Also, there is no allegation of extra payment made. Only on a technical plea of that work having not been duly verified in the Measurement Book (in short 'MB'), adverse inference has been drawn. Then, in absence of any requirement to invite tender etc. to auction old bricks, the sale of old bricks at Rs.15,000/- could never form the subject matter of charge of financial irregularity etc. With respect to the third charge, it has been submitted, the work was found duly recorded and approved in the MB, yet, by adopting nit-picking approach, false and frivolous allegations have been levelled that some of the bricks used to lay the drain, were sub-standard. The allegation of absence of 10 cm ballast foundation is stated to be patently false. As to the other charge, the same has been found to be not proved and as to the last charge with respect to plantation of trees, again, no allegation of such gravity has been noticed as may warrant the extreme action of suspension of financial and administrative powers.

5. In totality, it has been submitted, the conditions to take action under Section-95(1)(g)(iii) of the Act were not made out, inasmuch as, there is no allegation to abuse of position or persistent failure to perform duties imposed by the Act or Rules framed thereunder. Even if the finding of the preliminary enquiry report were to be accepted on face value, the same may never go to establish the allegation of abuse of position or persistent failure to perform duties. Further, they do not go to show that continuance of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan would not be desirable in public interest, pending final enquiry.

6. To bolster those submissions, it has been further asserted, in any case suspension of financial and administrate powers may not arise in every case covered under Section-95(1)(g) of the Act but in a smaller variety of such cases where it is prima facie found that the Gram Pradhan had committed financial and other irregularities. That condition has not been made out, at all. There is no material or satisfaction recorded to establish any case, beyond negligence.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would submit, at the present stage, only a final enquiry has been instituted. There is nothing to disbelieve the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry report. Since, payments were found to have been made by the petitioner without corresponding entries in the 'MB' as may have been approved by the engineers, a case of financial irregularity is made out. Further, with respect to the deficiencies noted in the laying of public drain, it has been submitt