Vimlesh Kumar Shukla, J. - (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 20.7.2009/ 30.7.2009 passed by District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar wherein order of removal against petitioner in exercise of authority vested under Sec. 95(1)(g), U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 has been passed and further order has been passed directing for recovery of the amount in question in term of Sec. 27(2) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
(2.) Brief background of the case is that petitioner had been functioning as Pradhan and in respect of activities being carried out by petitioner complaint had been made as provided for under Sec. 95(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up -Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. Show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner based on the report submitted by District Basic Education Officer, Sant Ravidas Nagar on 13.11.2007. Petitioner submitted her reply and thereafter an order was passed on 17.2.2008 ceasing financial and administrative power of the Pradhan and Finance and Accounts Officer, Sant Ravidas Nagar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Against the said order in question petitioner has preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13100 of 2008 before this Court and this Court on 12.3.2008 stayed the operation of the said order and left it open that formal inquiry shall however, may go on and shall be concluded expeditiously. Finance and Accounts Officer Sant Ravidas Nagar thereafter fixed 12.3.2008 and thereafter fixed 17.3.2008 and proceeded to submit its report on 5.5.2008. District Magistrate thereafter, on 19.9.2008 passed order of removal. Said order has been subject -matter of challenge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53012 of 2008 and this Court had quashed the said order and asked the District Magistrate to re -examine the reply submitted by the petitioner with specific reference to the violation of the statutory provisions of sub -rule (6) and (11) of Rule -6 of Rules 1997 and pass a reasoned speaking order, and thereafter order has been passed again on 30.7.2009 which is subject -matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and original record in question has also been summoned and thereafter with the consent of the parties, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal.
(3.) Sri K.S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case inquiry so held is in breach of statutory provision as contained under Rule 6 of Rules U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up -Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, and reasonable opportunity has not at all been provided for as such same are liable to be quashed.;