D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) On the allegation that the fund in respect of Jawahar Rojgar Yojna was not properly being utilised by the Pradhan, in exercise of the powers under Section 95 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. 1947, the State Government through Block Development Officer, Budaun, had sought to exercise external control in the matter by asking the Pradhan to furnish statement of accounts for the periods 1995-96 and 1996-97 within a stipulated period. But the Pradhan had failed to produce statement of accounts or any other document with regard to the said two financial years. In the circumstances, by an order dated 27.9.1997, the fund under Jawahar Rojgar Yojna in Account No. 6455 was seized so that no further amount could be withdrawn from the said fund. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition by the Pradhan.
(2.) Mr. A. K. Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by reason of Section 95 (1) (g), no enquiry could be made against the Pradhan unless the same is followed in accordance with the rules being U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules. 1997 and the complaint is supported by an affidavit. He also contends that the complaint was signed by 11 members and some of the signatures were forged. His further contention is that the Block Development Officer had no authority to suspend the financial power of the Pradhan.
(3.) After having heard Mr. Sachan and Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel, it appears from the notice contained in Annexure-3, that the said notice was not a notice within the meaning of Section 95 (1) (g) for removal of the Pradhan. If the enquiry is not an enquiry within the meaning of Section 95 (1) (g) of the 1947 Act. in that event U. P. Panchayat Raj [Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 cannot be attracted. The title of the said rules itself shows that the said rules relate to an enquiry relating to removal of Pradhan. In the present case, the enquiry has not been Initiated for the purpose of removing the Pradhan. On the other hand, it was an enquiry with regard to exercise of external control as provided in Section 95 (1) (b) or 95 (1) (c) read with clause (e) of Section 95 (1). The 1997 Rules had never been intended to apply in respect of an enquiry within the meaning of Section 95 (1) (e). Therefore, it is not necessary that such complaint is to be made supported by an affidavit as is required under the said rules. The impugned order itself shows that it was only seizure of a particular account in view cf the fact that the Pradhan had failed to furnish statements of accounts with regard to the financial years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Thus, it is not suspension of the financial power of the Pradhan altogether. It is only in respect of utilisation of a particular fund, of which In normal course the Pradhan should have furnished the statements of account, but the Pradhan is unable to produce the same even after being asked through the said notice.;