N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) The Petitioner was Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Jamdashahi in the district of Basti. He was removed from that office Under Sec. 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Basti, on May 6, 1969. An appeal filed by the Petitioner to the District Magistrate, Basti, failed on August 5, 1969. Thereupon the present petition was filed with the prayer to quash the aforesaid two orders passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Basti and the District Magistrate, Basti respectively. The writ petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge and it was pressed on only one ground, namely that the impugned order dated May 6, 1969 passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Basti was in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge felt that there was a conflict in two Division Bench decisions of this Court reported in Ved Singh v/s. Assistant Sub -Divisional Officer : AIR 1965 All. 370 and Hari Chand v/s. State of U.P., 1970 AWR 48 and he accordingly referred the case to a Full Bench and the writ petition has thus come up before us.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has attacked the order of removal of the Petitioner even before us only on one ground, namely that it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are in a narrow compass. A complaint was made to the Sub -Divisional Officer by one Bipat Husain and three others bringing to his notice certain illegal acts said to have been committed by the Petitioner in the discharge of his duties as a Pradhan and the Petitioner was accused of having abused his position as a Pradhan. The Sub -Divisional Officer directed the Tahsildar to make enquiry into the complaint and to submit report. The Tahsildar in his turn passed on the complaint to the Naib -Tahsildar for making an enquiry into the allegations made therein. A similar complaint made to the Chief Minister also reached the Naib -Tahsildar for enquiring in due course. The Naib -Tahsildar recorded the statement of the Petitioner and of certain other persons including the complainant Bipat Husain and submitted his report. Thereafter a charge -sheet was drawn up by the Sub -Divisional Officer and the Petitioner was required to submit his explanation to the charge as also to give a list of the witnesses whom he proposed to examine in defence and also to mention the name of those persons whom the Petitioner wanted to cross -examine. According to the Petitioner he made an application to the Sub -Divisional Officer for being supplied with the copies of the complaint made by Bipat Husain, report of the Naib -Tahsildar and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Naib -Tahsildar, but he was supplied only with a copy of the report of the Naib -Tahsildar. The Petitioner submitted his explanation and towards the end of it, it was also mentioned that he would press and request for his right to cross -examine the witnesses on whose statements reliance was sought to be placed against him and also to adduce oral evidence of witnesses whose list would be submitted in due course. Certain proceedings took place after the explanation was furnished and ultimately the Sub -Divisional Officer fixed October 11, 1968 for evidence. As appears from the copy of the order -sheet dated October 11, 1968 which has been attached as Annexure 'B' to the counter -affidavit of Adya Prasad Tripathi the Naib -Tahsildar who conducted the enquiry, a statement was made on behalf of the Petitioner that he did not desire to produce any oral evidence and only wanted to have an opportunity of personal hearing. The Sub -Divisional Officer fixed October 28, 1968 for personal hearing. On the said date the Petitioner appeared along with his counsel and the order sheet of that date indicates that it was agreed (ab yeh tai paya gaya) that now the Petitioner would have no personal hearing and November 2, 1968 was fixed for arguments. Arguments could not be heard on November 2, 1968 and the case was adjourned to November 18, 1968. Bipat Husain in the meantime seems to have made an application to the District Magistrate complaining that no evidence was being recorded against the Petitioner and that both the parties may be given adequate opportunity for producing evidence. An order was passed by the District Magistrate on November 16, 1968 to the effect that the Sub -Divisional Officer will take evidence of both the parties and then after hearing them, if they so wished pass necessary orders according to law. It appears that in pursuance of the said order the Sub -Divisional Officer on November 18, 1968 which was the date fixed in the case required the Petitioner as well as Bipat Husain to submit a list of their witnesses. Bipat Husain submitted two lists of witnesses, but the Petitioner did not submit any. On February 13, 1969 statement of Bipat Husain was recorded in part and March 1, 1969 was fixed for further evidence. On the said date, however, neither Bipat Husain nor the Petitioner appeared and the Sub -Divisional Officer fixed March 27, 1969 for arguments. On some application made by Bipat Husain the Sub -Divisional Officer passed an order on March 19, 1969 to the effect that the witnesses had already been examined in enquiry proceedings and there is no need to call them for fresh examination. Arguments could not be heard on March 27, 1969 and April 2, 1969 was fixed in the case. Bipat Husain seems to have in the meantime again made some application to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate seems to have asked the Sub -Divisional Officer to take necessary action. Neither a copy of the said application nor the order passed thereon by the District Magistrate has been filed and it is not, therefore, possible to ascertain their contents but presumably acting upon the order that may have been passed by the District Magistrate the following order was passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer on April 2, 1969: Proceeding has been pending since long. Witnesses to be cross -examined by the Pradhan under suspension have not been produced on dates fixed. In case the Applicant wants to produce the witnesses he should produce them on 12 -4 -69, the last date for purpose. In case the Pradhan wants or does not want to cross -examine them, will be determined on that date.
(3.) Bipat Husain produced 13 witnesses on April 12, 1969 who were tendered for cross -examination but the Petitioners' counsel declined to cross -examine them. Thereafter April 21, 1969 seems to have been fixed in the case and ultimately the impugned order removing the Petitioner was passed on May 6, 1969.;