K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THE Appellant was holding the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Merapur Sajapur district Mainpuri. The Sub -Divisional Officer by his order dated 6th August, 1975, removed the Appellant Jangali Singh from the office of Pradhan on the finding that the Pradhan had misused his office and his continuance as such was not desirable in public interest. Jangali Singh thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on February 20, 1976. Hence this appeal.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that certain complaints were made against the Appellant to the Sub -Divisional Officer regarding allotment of Gaon Sabha land. The Sub -Divisional Officer after obtaining a preliminary report from the Tehsildar issued a charge -sheet to the Appellant dated 7 -12 -1974 containing five charges. In the charge -sheet, it was stated that the Appellant was unfit to hold the office of Pradhan on account of charges and he was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office. The Appellant submitted his explanation and denied the charges. The Sub -Divisional Officer held enquiry, examined witnesses and the Appellant was given opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses as well as to produce witnesses. After the conclusion of the enquiry the Sub -Divisional Officer by his order dated 6th August, 1975, removed the Appellant from the office of Pradhan. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that the impugned order of the Sub -Divisional Officer is void inasmuch as the Appellant was not given any reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed, as contemplated by the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, inasmuch as the Appellant was not given a second opportunity of showing cause against the finding recorded by the Sub -Divisional Officer as well as against the action proposed. Sri S.C. Budhwar, learned Standing Counsel, contended that the Appellant was not entitled to any second opportunity and he was given a reasonable opportunity of showing came as required by the Act. This question was raised by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge who repelled the contention on the ground that a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed did not contemplate giving of a second opportunity of showing cause after the charges are proved against a Pradhan.
(3.) IN order to determine this question, it is necessary to refer to Section 95 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Section 95 confers power on the state Government to remove a Pradhan from his office on the grounds mentioned in Clause (g). The proviso to Clause (g) however, lays down: (i) No action shall be taken under Clause (g)...except after giving to the body or person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed. The proviso thus lays down that no action against a Pradhan can be taken under Clause (g) unless he is given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed. The expression "reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed" requires that the Pradhan be given an opportunity to deny the charges and to lead evidence in support of his case and also to cross -examine the witnesses, if any, examined in support of the charges. After the charges are found to be established the Pradhan is entitled to contend that the charges are not proved and that the findings are not correct and that the charges even if proved do not require the punishment proposed to be meted out to him. This is the concept of reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed.;