ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.N. Upadhya, the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY this special appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 19 -12 -2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 54394 of 2002 (Moti Lal v. District Magistrate, Lalitpur and others,) dismissing the writ petition. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are; the appellant is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kalyanapura, Block Virdha, Tahsil and District Lalitpur. Up -Pradhan made a complaint against the appellant. On the complaint a preliminary enquiry was directed. The complaint was signed by several other villagers along with Mangal Singh, Up -Pradhan. An affidavit was also filed by Mangal Singh sworn by Oath Commissioner. Land Conservation Officer and Project Officer conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted preliminary enquiry report dated 13 -10 -2002. A show -cause notice was issued to the appellant by the District Magistrate dated 25 -10 -2002. The appellant submitted a reply to the show -cause notice. The District Magistrate passed two orders on 27 -11 -2002 filed as Annexures -6 and 7 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. By first order dated 27 -11 -2002 reply/explanation of the appellant was rejected and by second order passed on the same day the financial and administrative powers of the appellant were ceased and three members committee was constituted.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant raised following submissions in support of the appeal: - (i) The complaint filed by Up -Pradhan and signed by several villagers was not in accordance with Rules 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Pranchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up -Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 1997 Rules). Complaint ought to have been supported by an affidavit duly sworn by public notary. The complaint being not in accordance with Rules 1997, the order of the District Magistrate falls on the ground. (ii) According to 1997 Rules, the preliminary enquiry is to be conducted by District Pranchayat Raj Officer and in the present case the preliminary enquiry has been conducted by Land Conservation Officer and Project Officer who are not competent to conduct the preliminary enquiry. (iii) The appellant was not informed about the preliminary enquiry nor the said enquiry was conducted in presence of the appellant, hence the whole proceedings are vitiated in law. ;