Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri I.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Sri Tripathi B.G., Bhai, Advocate for respondent No. 6. The writ petition is directed against order dated 23.3.2013 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed by District Magistrate, Siddharthnagar ceasing administrative and financial powers of petitioner in the capacity of Gram Pradhan in Gram Panchayat Agaya, Block Dumariya Ganj, District Siddharthnagar under Proviso to section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1947") and appointing three members committee to discharge the said function besides appointing Enquiry Officer for regular enquiry, under Rule 6 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up -Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1997") as amended in 2001.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to present dispute are as under: The petitioner was elected Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Agaya, Block Dumariya Ganj, District Siddharthnagar in the election held in 2010. A complaint was made by respondent No. 6 Dinesh Prasad Pandey on 26.10.2012 whereupon District Magistrate issued a letter dated 27.12.2012 calling for the comments of Chief Development Officer, District Panchayat Raj Officer and Project Director (District Rural Development Officer) Siddharthnagar. The Chief Development Officer, Siddharthnagar thereupon constituted a committee consisting of District Basic Education Officer Siddharthnagar, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharthnagar and Assistant Engineer, District Rural Development Authority, Siddharthnagar to hold enquiry and submit report. The aforesaid committee submitted its report on 9/10.1.2013 finding certain allegations true against petitioner relating to embezzlement/misappropriation.
(3.) IT appears that another report was submitted by Divisional Technical Committee, Basti Division Basti. Both these reports were relied by District Magistrate to issue a show cause notice dated 29.1.2013 requiring petitioner to show cause as to why action under Proviso to section 95(1)(g) of Act, 1947 be not taken against him besides directing for regular enquiry. The petitioner submitted reply dated 13.2.2013 and thereafter impugned order dated 23.3.2013 has been passed by District Magistrate, Siddharthnagar.;