Pankaj Naqvi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Irfan Chaudhary / Mohd. Saleem, learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri Aklank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned standing counsel.
(2.) This writ petition is preferred against the order dated 8.11.2017, passed by respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Saharanpur, under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, inter alia, ceasing financial / administrative powers of the petitioner, a Pradhan.
(3.) The sheet-anchor of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that a complaint against a Pradhan not supported by an affidavit, in terms of Rule 3 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (short "the Rules"), is virtually a waste-paper, on which no cognizance could be taken, which according to him is also authenticated by the peremptory prohibition under Rule 3(5). He submitted that the word "otherwise" in Rule 4 would not encompass a complaint not supported by an affidavit, else Rule 3 would itself become otiose. He further submitted that the observations of the Full Bench in paragraph-67 of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2010 10 ADJ 1 (F.B) did not lay down the correct law as there no reasons have been ascribed for the said observations.;