JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Director, Panchayati Raj, Uttarakhand, by which the petitioner has been suspended under Section 138(4) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (“the Act”) till the conclusion of final inquiry; as also for quashing the complaint dated 10.06.2022 submitted by Chandra Shekhar Mudela to the Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Uttarakhand, Dehradun.

2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, in a chronology, are as follows:-

(i) The petitioner was elected Pramukh, Block Development Committee, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

(ii) On 12.04.2022, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner in respect of a complaint.

(iii) On 16.4.2022, a Committee was constituted by the respondent no. 3, the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar to look into the charges made against the petitioner by Mr. Ravindra Singh Rana.

(iv) The petitioner challenged the constitution of Committee on 16.04.2022 by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 990 of 2022, which was dismissed on 10.05.2022 with the observation that the constitution of Committee does not give rise to any cause of action to the petitioner.

(v) On 11.05.2022, another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged both the notices dated 12.4.2022 and 11.5.2022 by filing two separate writ petitions i.e. WP (M/S) No. 1153 of 2022 and WP (M/S) No. 1163 of 2022 (“the petitions”).

(vi) The petitions were taken up for hearing on 08.06.2022 and the Court passed an interim order by which the operation of the impugned show cause notices was kept in abeyance till the next date of listing.

(vii) On 18.06.2022, the Director, Panchayati Raj, Uttarakhand dropped the proceedings on the notices impugned in the petitions, finding that the notices were not in conformity with the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas), Enquiry Rules, 1997 (“the 1997 Rules”).

(viii) On 23.08.2022, the petitions were dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, in view of the fact that the Government had already withdrawn the notices.

(ix) Another complaint dated 10.06.2022 was addressed to the Secretary, Panchayati Raj by a Chandra Shekhar Mudela. On which the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, Panchayati Raj Section on 21.06.2022 ordered a preliminary inquiry.

(x) On 08.07.2022, the Additional District Magistrate/Inquiry Officer, Udham Singh Nagar submitted an inquiry report pursuant to the complaint of Chandra Shekhar Mudela. In the inquiry report, it was concluded that the petitioner as Block Pramukh had committed gross violation in discharge of his duties. The inquiry report was forwarded to the Joint Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Section-II, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.

(xi) On 24.08.2022, the impugned order was passed, by which, under Section 138(4) of the Act, the petitioner was suspended till conclusion of the final inquiry.

3. The order dated 24.08.2022 has been put to challenge.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the complaint of Chandra Shekhar Mudela is not in conformity with Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules; the complaint is not verified as required under Rule 3(3) of the 1997 Rules. Therefore, according to the petitioner, non-conformity of the complaint with Rule 3(3) of the 1997 Rules invokes the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the 1997 Rules and such a complaint could not have been entertained.

5. In its counter affidavit, it is the case of the State that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with Section 138 of the Act read with the 1997 Rules; the petitioner has not discharged his official duties and responsibilities and misappropriated the public funds. It has further been the case of the State that the impugned order has been passed after due deliberation on the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer; the impugned order is