SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.4.2018 by which the petitioner has been removed from the office of Pradhan.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after a preliminary enquiry was undergone and a report was submitted on 30.1.2018 with regard to the complaints which were filed against the petitioner, no enquiry thereafter was undertaken and only on the basis of the preliminary enquiry dated 30.1.2018 a show cause notice was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the judgment in Smt. Malti Devi v. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2008(104) RD 587 , preliminary enquiry had to be conducted either by the District Panchayat Raj Officer or by a District Level Officer nominated by the District Magistrate. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the final order which has been passed on 19.4.2018 had to be passed on the basis of a fresh enquiry conducted under Rules 5 and 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1997 Rules'). He relies upon a Full Bench decision reported in Vivekanand Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2011 (1) ALJ 694 .
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel was required to take instructions. However, he could not deny the fact that after the preliminary enquiry was conducted and a report thereafter was submitted on 30.1.2018, no enquiry as is contemplated under Rules 5 and 6 of the 1997 Rules was undergone. He only pointed out that by an order dated 21.5.2018 under Section 12 J of the Panchayat Raj Act on a temporary basis, one Naseem had been given the charge of the Pradhan.;