- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard Shri D. K. S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Shri Ashok Nath Tripathi has filed an impleadment application on behalf of Shri Yashveer Singh, the complainant.
(2.) WITH the consent of the parties the matter was finally heard and is being decided at the admission stage. The petitioner is the elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dharupur, Devel opment Block-Noorpur, Distt. Bijnor. Shri Yashveer Singh, Shri Mahesh Kumar and Shri Nripendra Kumar, the residents of Gram Panchayat Dharupur made a complaint to the District Magistrate alleging misuse of office and irregularities in carrying out development works. The District Magistrate appointed the Soil Con servation Officer-respondent No. 3 as enquiry officer to conduct preliminary en quiry under Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 on the allega tions made against the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted a preliminary enquiry report on 2. 11. 2007 on which a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 1. 1. 2008 alleging, (1) the construction work in pond was made with out making the inlet and slope; (2) one of the four rooms constructed in the school campus was incomplete. This room was required to be constructed in a manner that it should be earthquake proof. It has been constructed with one wall on the support of the neighbouring room, which does not make it earthquake proof. The building material used in the construction is not of high quality; (3) only 209 out of 226 students have received the scholarships. There was no proof of distribution of scholarship to remaining 17 students. The disbursement for which documents were not made available raised doubts over its disbursement; (4) in the mid-day meal scheme Smt. Rajeshwari Devi wife of Shri Mahendra Singh was paid from October 2005 to March 2006, whereas the vouchers were issued for seven months causing misappropriation of Rs. 1. 392/-; (5) in muster roll No. 15 the payments to the labourers at SI. No. 1 to 16 for the period 14th to 29th August, 2007 were shown fraudulently, thereby causing misappropriation of Rs. 13,760/-; and (7) the technical evaluation shows that there was mis appropriation/misuse of Rs. 15,869/ -. The petitioner gave his reply to the show cause notice on 1st January, 2008 alleging that the construction of pond could not be completed due to rainy season. The works were carried out under the supervision of Junior Engineer and that the inlet, outlet and slope are under construction. The fourth room in the school campus is separate, and is in different direction from the other three rooms and that the constructions were completed under the supervision of Junior Engi neer, Vikas Khand, Noorpur. The earthquake proof room is in open towards east and is separate from other rooms. The scholarship for 17 students could not be distributed as the caste wise details were not provided by the Head Master. The amount of Rs. 5,100/- at the rate of Rs. 300/- per students was deposited in the account on 23. 8. 2007 and the receipt was made available to the enquiry officer. The pay for the 7th month was paid to Smt. Rajeshwari Devi and the receipt and voucher are enclosed. The labourers at SI. Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 were paid ten days' wages on muster roll No. 15 and the labourers at SI. Nos. 14, 15 and 16 were actually paid for eight days. By mistake they were shown to be present for 10 days. With regard to SI. No. 16 the receipt of payment was enclosed. With regard to technical evaluation it was stated in reply that 111 mtrs. road from the house of Naththu to Balram was repaired and that the other works of the road from Sachin Book Depot to 'pacca' road and others were carried out. The mea surements were interchanged. The completion certificate was enclosed.
(3.) THE District, Magistrate considered the reply. He was not satisfied with the explanation. He has ceased the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner under the proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 pending formal enquiry and has directed appointment of three member commit tee by his order dated 1. 3. 2008, giving rise to this writ petition. Shri D. K. S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the complainant-caveator has no locus standi to oppose the writ petition. He may not be impleaded in the writ petition. He has relied upon Division Bench judgment in Guru Prasad Yadav v. State of U. P. and others, Special Appeal No. 382 of 2008 decided on 13. 3. 2008 in which it was held that the complainant has no right to be heard in the proceedings before the Court. He would further submit that once the District Magistrate has issued show cause notice and has received the reply, it was incumbent upon him to consider that reply before suspending financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan. Shri D. K. S. Rathore further submits that in similar circumstances this Court has passed interim orders on 28. 1. 2008 in Naresh Kumar v. State of U. P. and others, Writ Petition No. 4897 of 2008.;