Arun Tandon - (1.) -Heard P. N. Saxena senior advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Saxena advocate on behalf of the petitioner, standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri A. N. Verma advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4. Parties agree that the writ petition nay be finally decided at this stage itself.
(2.) PETITIONER Bhagwan Deen Verma is the elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Artara, Block Maudaha, District Hamirpur. The District Magistrate vide order dated 31st March, 2004 ceased the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan under Section 95 (1) (g) proviso of the Panchayat Raj Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 14474 of 2004. The writ petition so filed was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 1.3.2005 with a direction that the District Magistrate may pass fresh reasoned order after considering the reply of the petitioner. It appears that during this period Project Director District Rural Development Authority was appointed as final enquiry officer. The said enquiry officer submitted his report on 4.9.2004. The District Magistrate on receipt of the said report, issued a fresh show cause notice dated 16.12.2004 to the petitioner to show cause as to why he may not be removed from the office of Pradhan in view of the charges found proved. The District Magistrate, after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner, by means of the order dated 16.4.2005 has removed the petitioner from the office of the Pradhan and has further directed for recovery of sum of Rs. 4,290 against the petitioner. The order dated 16.4.2005 is under challenge in the present writ petition. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the order passed by the District Magistrate is legally not sustainable inasmuch as the charges even if found proved against the petitioner are not of such nature so as to justify the removal of the elected Pradhan under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioner has also challenged the finding recorded in respect of the individual charge on various fact and grounds.
(3.) SO far as the challenge to the finding recorded in respect of individual charges by the District Magistrate on the basis of the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner is concerned, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot upset the conclusion arrived at by the District Magistrate on such re-appreciation of evidence. However, it is worthwhile to reproduce the finding recorded in respect of the charges against the petitioner in respect of the charge Nos. 1 and 2, which are quoted herein below : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... So far as the charge No. 3 is concerned, the same is general in nature namely in respect of construction work in the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner has acted in violation of the Government orders and rules and in respect of said charge only a general finding has been recorded that since the petitioner has not submitted reply to the same, he being the Pradhan cannot violate the rules.;