- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioner was the Pradhan of Gapn Sabha Marsena. district Agra. The Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Etmadpur. the second respondent, by an order dated November 5, 1969, removed the petitioner from the office of the Pra dhan. The petitioner appealed to the Additional District Magistrate, Agra, res pondent No. 1. but his appeal has also been dismissed. Hence this petition, A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner under Section 95 (g) (iii) of the Panchayat Raj Act. which provides that a Pradhan may be remov ed if he has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform his duties imposed by the Act or the Rules. There were three charges against him: firstly that he had collected on behalf of the Gaon Sabha a sum of Rs.500/01. but had deposited a sum of Rs. 500.35. He had thus deposited 34 paise in excess, secondly that he had failed to realise a sum of Rs. 270/- as theka money from a thekedar and thirdly that he had failed to appear before the Tehsildar even though he was summoned to appear more than once.
(3.) CHARGE No. 1 on the face of It appears to be frivolous. The petitioner cannot be said to have abused his posi tion as a Pradhan when he deposited a sum of 34 paise in excess, nor can he be accused of failure to perform his duties. It must have been through inadvertence that a small amount of 34 paise was de-posited in excess. It is difficult to understand as to how could anyone think of framing a charge against the Pradhan merely because he had deposited in the government treasury an amount in ex cess of what he had realised. The mis-; take, if any, is so trivial that no reason able man would take notice of such a mistake, even if the deposit in excess can be said to be a mistake or a lapse on the part of the Pradhan. It is obvious, there fore, that so far as the first charge Ss concerned, it was not a charge in the eye of law.;