K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. The appellant is the writ petitioner.

2. The appellant was the Pradhan of a Village Panchayat. By the impugned decision, the financial powers of the appellant have been taken away. The judgment of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:

“Mr. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate, present for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Additional CSC, present for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 5.

The petitioner is a “Gram Pradhan” of Village Missarwala, District Udham Singh Nagar. On her own complaint, an inquiry has been constituted and the matter is presently inquired by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. Consequently, till the completion of the inquiry, the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been taken away under the provisions of Section 138 1 (c) of the Uttarakhand Panchayatiraj Act, 2016.

Since there is a statutory provision, wherein during pendency of an inquiry, these powers have to be taken away, this Court finds no anomaly in the order dated 28.07.2017 passed by respondent No.1.

However, the writ petition stands disposed with the direction to the concerned District Panchayat Raj Officer to conduct the inquiry in the matter as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay, in accordance with law.”

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

3. We heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Kumar Arya and Ms. Farida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C.S. Rawat, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.

4. Substantially, three submissions have been raised before us by Mr. T.A. Khan, learned senior counsel for the appellant. In the first place, learned senior counsel would submit that there is no satisfaction by the State Government in the matter of taking away the financial powers of the appellant. Such a requirement is warranted on a reading of Section 138(1)(c) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) runs the argument. However, in the English version of the said provision, there is no requirement of Government being satisfied. The translation made available to us, undoubtedly, reads as follows:

“138. Removal of the office Bearer of Tri-Cadre Panchayat from their posts:-”

(1) The State Government may remove a member of the Panchayats on any of the following grounds:-

(A). He had while holding the post of member of Village Panchayat, Area Panchayat or District Panchayat, tendered his vote or participated in the discussion in any commercial interest on behalf of any other person.

(B). He has become physically or mentally disabled to perform his duties as Member, Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Pramukh, Up Pramukh, Chairman or Vice Chairman.

(C). He had been found guilty for any misconduct in performing his duties during the performance of his duty as Member, Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Pramukh, Up Pramukh, Chairman, Vice Chairman, either in present tenure or in any preceeding tenure or he has violated any provision of this Act or has caused loss or damage to Panchayat fund or property and in the opinion of the State Government, due to this misconduct, violation or loss or working unauthorizedly by husband, family members or relatives of such female members, Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Pramukh, Up Pramukh, Chairman, Vice Chairman have become unfit for their post, in those circumstances they will be suspended till the final departmental enquiry and their works and responsibilities may be assigned to a committee of three elected members of that Panchayat. Furthermore, that the disciplinary enquiry may also be taken against the departmental employee/officer, found guilty in the enquiry.”

5. English version of Section 138(1)(c) reads as follows:

“138. Separation from their posts to the officers of the three tiers Panchayat

(1) The State Government may remove a member of the Panchayats on any of the following grounds:-

(c) that he has been guilty, whether in his present or an earlier term of office, of miscondu