Hari Swarup, J.(for self and for T. S. Misra, J.) - (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing e removal of the petitioner from the office of the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Shekhpur Tareha and against the appellate order passed by the District Magistrate dismissing his appeal.
(2.) THE petitioner was elected Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and during that term of his office he had leased out certain plots. After the term expired, fresh election took place and he was again elected the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. During this term of office he was served with a charge sheet regarding the alleged abuse of his position as Pradhan during the earlier term of his office. THE petitioner did not show cause and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate holding the charge as proved directed his removal. The petitioner went up in appeal. In appeal one of the points raised was that the petitioner could not be removed from the office on the basis of the abuse of his position during the earlier term of office. This contention was not accepted by the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed. The only question thus which arises in the petition is whether a person holding the office of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha can be removed from office for having abused his position during his earlier term of that office. The provision concerning the removal of a Pradhan is contained in section 95 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The relevant part thereof reads as under : "95. (1) The State Government may- (g) suspend or remove a member of a Gaon Panchayat or joint committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, an officebearer of a Gaon Sabha or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch of Nyaya Panchayat, if he- (i) ............................................. (ii) ............................................ (iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or (h) remove a person, if, having been elected as a Pradhan, he does not possess the qualifications specified in section 5-B. The reading of clause (g) ane (h) of sub-section (1) of section 95 shows that a person who has been elected as a Pradhan can be removed if he does not possess the necessary qualifications or if he abuses his position as Pradhan. The words "as such" in sub-clause (iii) of clause (g) further suggests that the abuse of the position must be in his capacity as Pradhan at a time when the action for removal is taken. What an officebearer does during the term of his office alone can form the basis of disciplinary action against him and not what he may have done at an earlier time before the commencement of the instant term of office. In a democratic process each term of election marks the beginning and end of a particular office. The first term having come to an end cannot be deemed to be continuing or merging in the second terms of the office of the Pradhan. The second term is an independent, term of that office. The election of the second term marks the beginning of a new term and continues till that term lasts. Disciplinary proceedings for removal of a Pradhan during that term can be taken only if he abuses his position during that particular term as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and not for anything that he may have done during another term of office. The petitioner, therefore could not have been charge sheeted and removed for something which he had not done during the term of office which was sought to be curtailed by his removal under section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act.
(3.) THE appellate order as well as the order directing the removal of the petitioner thus suffer from manifest error of law. THE petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Let a writ in the nature of certiorari issue to quash the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Petition allowed.;