JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav 'Warsi', learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 31.12.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.4, whereby upon the complaint/representation made by the petitioner against the respondent No.4 raising issues of embezzlement and wrongful allotment but the respondent No.2 finding that no case has been made out has rejected the representation of the petitioner.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy, briefly the facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed first.

4. The petitioner had made a complaint/representation before the respondent No.4 raising allegations of embezzlement committed by the Village Pradhan namely Smt. Sunita Devi as well as inappropriate recommendations made by the Village Pradhan for granting undue benefits under Pradhan Mantri Yojna to such persons who were not eligible amongst others. It is alleged that the same was not enquired into nor any enquiry was held and yet by means of the impugned order dated 31.12.2020, it has been rejected despite a direction of this Court for deciding the representation in accordance with law.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition No.5379 of 2020 (PIL) wherein allegations were made against the Village Pradhan and an enquiry was sought to be instituted, however, a Division Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 28.02.2020 disposed of the said writ petition of the petitioner permitting him to raise all such complaints in terms of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayati (Removal of Pradhans/Up Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, before the concerned authority.

6. It is further urged that in furtherance thereof, the petitioner made his complaint on 20.03.2020, a copy of the said complaint was sent to the respondents by post and later it was also handed over in person during the Tehsil Divas.

7. Since, the matter remained pending and was not being decided, the petitioner preferred another petition bearing Writ Petition No.24296 of 2020 (M/S) with specific averments that in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner had moved a complaint, which has not yet been decided and in this context, the Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 16.12.2020 directed the District Magistrate, Sultanpur to pass appropriate orders on the pending application of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of the order was produced before him.

8. It is further urged that the petitioner again sent a reminder to the respondent on 24.12.2020. It is submitted that once it was brought to the notice of the respondent that they were required to decide the representation of the petitioner, the respondent by means of the order dated 31.12.2020 rejected the same finding that no allegation made against the Village Pradhan for the alleged irregularities and financial embezzlement were made out.

9. It has also been pointed out that the impugned order refers to an order dated 16.08.2020 wherein an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The order also refers to an enquiry report dated 18.03.2020 and a supplementary report dated 19.10.2020 and thereafter considering the same, the representation of the petitioner dated 22.12.2020 has been rejected.

10. It is further submitted that the representation of the petitioner was dated 20.03.2020, hence, the enquiry report as mentioned in the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 would