Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is an elected Pradhan. On a complaint lodged by the respondents No. 4 and 5 an enquiry was got conducted by the District Magis trate through the District Panchayat Raj Officer, who submitted his report on 14.3.2008. THEreafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate on 24.3.2008. THE petitioner submitted her reply on 17.4.2008. THEn by order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the District Magistrate exercising powers under section 95(1)(g)(iii) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the fi nancial and administrative powers of the petitioner have been ceased and a Three-Member committee has been constituted to perform the duties of the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Plead ings have been exchanged and with con sent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. The submission of Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint filed by the respon dents No. 4 and 5 was not accompanied by an affidavit and hence the same was in contravention of Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as (he Rules of 1997). It is further submitted that the en quiry against the petitioner was conducted ex parte without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It was lastly con tended that the reply to the show cause notice given by the petitioner to the District Magistrate was not considered by the Dis trict Magistrate and no satisfaction has been recorded by the District Magistrate with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that the charges against the petitioner were prima facie proved, regarding which the District Mag istrate was satisfied. It was also submitted that the complaint filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5 was, though not accompanied by an affidavit but subsequently an affi davit had been filed by them and as such compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1997 was made.
(3.) RULE 3 of the RULEs of 1997 pro vides that every complaint shall be accom panied by the complainant's own affidavit in support thereof and also the affidavits of all persons from whom he claims to have received information of facts relating to the accusation. Along with the counter affi davit of the State, copy of: the complaint ancKhe affidavit have been filed as Annex-ure-C.A.l The complaint is undated on which an endorsement has been made by the District Magistrate to the District Panchayat Raj Officer to the effect that nec essary action be takan after conducting an enquiry. The said endorsement is dated 14.1.2008, Thereafter the District Panchayat Raj Officer has made an endorsement on 16.1.2008 to the Senior clerk to take appro priate action. The aforesaid clearly shows that the undated complaint had been filed on or before 14.1.2008. The affidavit which has been filed with counter affidavit (is the joint affidavit of Respondents No. 4 and 5) and is dated 23.1.2008. As such it cannot be said that the complaint was accompanied by an affidavit of the complainant, as is required under RULE 3 of the RULEs of 1997. It is surprising that even though the com plaint was not accompanied by an affida vit, on 14.1.2008 itself the District Magistrate had made an endorsement forwarding the same to the District Panchayat Raj Offi cer to enquire into the matter and the Dis trict Panchayat Raj Officer further made his endorsement on 16.1.2008. As such, I am satisfied that the RULEs of 1997 have not been followed in this case. Further, in paragraph 7 of the writ petition it has been categorically stated that the petitioner had not been supplied with the copy of the complaint nor was in formed of any enquiry conducted against her and it was for the first time that she came to know of any such enquiry when the show cause notice dated 24.3.2008 was served on her. In reply, a bald denial has been made by the State-respondents with out stating as to when any such notice with regard to enquiry was ever served on the petitioner. As such, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that en quiry was conducted behind her back, has force.;