K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) (for self and for R. C. Srivastava, J.) :-The petitioner was Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Medapur in the district of Mainpuri. On a complaint made against the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer held an enquiry and framed two charges against the petitioner. The first charge related to the alleged irregularity committed by the petitioner in letting out the Gaon Sabha land and the second charge was that the petitioner had accepted illegal gratification at the rate of Rs. 100/- per decimal from the allottees. The petitioner denied the charges but the Sub-Divisional Officer held the charges proved and by his order dated 20th December, 1975, he removed the petitioner from the office of Pradhan. On appeal by the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, by his order dated 16th August, 1976, upheld the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging his removal from the office of Pradhan.
(2.) THE Pradhan of Gaon Sabha is elected by the members of Gaon Sabha in accordance with the provisions contained in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. He is representative of the people and is assigned important functions and duties under the said Act. Section 95 (1) (g) confers power on the State Government to suspend or remove an office bearer of a Gaon Sabha on the grounds mentioned therein. Under the said section a Pradhan or an office bearer of a Gaon Sabha is liable to be removed on the five grounds mentioned therein. Ground No. 3 which is relevant for our purposes lays down that a Pradhan is liable to be removed if he has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform his duties imposed by the Act or the Rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest. No office-bearer of a Gaon Sabha or a Pradhan is liable to be removed from his office unless a positive finding is recorded against him about the abuse of his position or persistent failure in performance of his duties and that his continuance as Pradhan is not desirable in public interest, it is in the background of these observations that the validity of the impugned order need be examined. The Sub-Divisional Officer did not hold an independent enquiry against the petitioner. It appears that certain complaints were made by some interested persons against the allotment of Gaon Sabha land. An enquiry was made into that complaint and during that enquiry the Sub-Divisional Officer recorded a finding against the petitioner and issued a charge-sheet to him. After receiving petitioner's reply the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from the office of Pradhan. These facts clearly show that no separate proceedings were taken against the petitioner and he was not given full opportunity of defence. Any enquiry made in respect of the alleged irregularity in the allotment of Gaon Sabha land could not be the foundation or basis for taking action against the Pradhan. Moreover, on a perusal of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, we find that the order suffers from manifest error of law inasmuch as he has failed to record any cogent reasons for his conclusion that the petitioner should be removed from the office of Pradhan as his continuance was not desirable in public interest. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is manifestly illegal. In appeal the District Magistrate clearly recorded a finding that from the evidence on the record the charge relating to acceptance of illegal gratification for the allotment of Gaon Sabha land framed against the petitioner was not established. The District Magistrate held that the petitioner was guilty of not showing proper receipts promptly and the land was not allotted to landless Harijans. The District Magistrate did not record any finding on charge No. 1. In the absence of any clear finding on charge No 1, the District Magistrate was not justified in holding that the petitioner mis-used his official position as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, or that he committed irregularities in the allotment of Pattas and misused his official position and his further continuance was not desirable in public interest. The District Magistrate, has, on the other hand, recorded a finding that the meeting of the Gaon Sabha at which the allotment of land was made by the petitioner was not conducted properly or legally. These findings even if accepted to be correct are not sufficient to make out a case of removal against the petitioner. Any irregularity in the convening or conduct of the meeting or any irregularity in the issue of receipts by the Pradhan could not be a valid ground for the conclusion that he has abused his position and his continuance as Pradhan is not desirable in public interest. The expression "abuse of position" contemplates positive and deliberate action on the part of the person concerned to derive benefit by misusing his official position. In the absence of any finding that the petitioner derived any benefit, any irregularity committed by him could not amount to abuse of his position. We are therefore of the opinion that on the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate the petitioner could not be removed from the office of Pradhan.
(3.) IN the result we allow the petition and quash the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20th December, 1975, and the order of the District Magistrate dated 16th August, 1976. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.;