- (1.) THE appellant was a Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. He was removed by an Assistant Sub-Divisional Officer, exercising the state Governments powers under Section 95(1)(g)(iii) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. A charge was framed against him to the effect that he had taken bribes from people of the village and had illegally constructed a chabutra in front of his house and he was called upon to explain it. He offered his explanation winch was found unsatisfactory by the Assistant Sub-Divisional Officer. He did not urge that an enquiry be made in his presence, that witnesses called to prove the charge be allowed to be cross-examined and that he be allowed an opportunity to produce witnesses in defence. No enquiry was held by the Sub-Divisional Officer; he simply considered the explanation and on finding it unsatisfactory passed the order removing him. The appellant filed a petition for certiorari for the quashing of this order of removal. The petition has been dismissed by our brother Broome and this special appeal is filed from his order.
(2.) WHILE the writ petition was pending in this Court it issued the following interim order. "issue notice. Let an ad interim order issue staying operation of the order made by respondent No. 1 dated 26-05-59." Under Section 95(2) a person removed under sun-Section (iii) of clause (g) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 95 shall not be entitled to be re-elected or re-appointed to any office under the Act for a period of 5 years. The order of removal was passed on 26-5-1959, and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to be re-elected or re-appointed to the office of Pradhan prior to 26-5-1964. In the election held prior to this date to fill the vacancy caused by his removal he again offered himself for election and was elected. An election petition was filed against his election on the ground of the disqualification mentioned above. His defence was that the disqualification did not operate because of the ad interim order passed by this Court during the pendency of the petition for the quashing or the removal order, suspending its operation. The election tribunal did not accept the defence, held that the appellant was disqualified and set aside his election. From this order of the tribunal he filed another petition which also has been refused by our brother Broome. Special Appeal No. 656 of 1964 is filed from the second order of our learned brother. Coming to the instant special appeal we find that the order of removal has been challenged on the sole ground that the appellant had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to examine defence witnesses. There is no provision in the Act laying down the procedure to be followed for removing a Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g); therefore, it cannot be said that a regular enquiry had to be made by the State Government and that the order of removal passed without such an enquiry being held was invalid. No provision of the Act was infringed by what was done or not done, by the Assistant Sub-Divisional Officer The principle of natural justice imposed only this obligation upon him that he had to give the appellant an opportunity to explain the charge; it did not go further and compel him to hold a regular trial by examining witnesses to prove the charge and allowing the appellant to cross-examine them, and to produce defence witnesses. All that the Assistant Sub-Divisional officer was required to do under the principles of natural justice was to give to the appellant an opportunity to explain the charges framed against him and he fully discharged this obligation. He was not required to act as a tribunal discharging quasi-judicial functions as in the case of State of Mysore v. Shivubasappa, AIR 1963 SC 375.
(3.) THE appellant himself dirt not ask for any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and to produce witnesses in defence; it is not open to him to contend now that he was not given this opportunity. When the Assistant Sub-Divisional Officer was not bound by any law to examine witnesses in his presence and to give him an opportunity to cross-examine them and to produce defence witnesses the initiative lay upon him, if he wanted to cross-examine the witnesses against him and to produce witnesses in defence, to ask for this opportunity. When he did not ask for it he is not justified in arguing that the order of removal was vitiated. No other point was urged in support of the petition for the quashing of the removal order and this special appeal is dismissed summarily.;