Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed, which is taken on record.
(2.) Heard Sri S.K. Yadav Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.P. Maurya, learned Addl. C.S.C. alongwith Sri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(3.) This petition was filed in the year 2018 challenging the order of the District Magisrate, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya) dated 19.6.2018 ceasing the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner who was the elected Gram Pradhan. During pendency of the writ petition final inquiry was completed and an order was passed on 31.1.2019 by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya removing the petitioner from the office of Gram Pradhan in exercise of powers under section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act 1947). Prior to it on 11.1.2019 another order was passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya under section 27 of the Act 1947 for recovery of half of the loss or misappropriation caused, which was to the tune of Rs.42 lacs, i.e. Rs.22499.63 lacs. These two orders were allowed to be challenged by the petitioner by this Court which allowed the application for amendment of the writ petition. These two order were challenged on the ground that there was an abject non-compliance of the procedure prescribed in Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules 1997. On 1.3.2019 this Court passed the following order: "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Perused the original record. Much is not being said at this stage for obvious reasons. The record shall again be produced on the next date. List/put up on 06.03.2019 per-emtorily. In the meantime, the State may, if it so chooses, file a counter affidavit to the amended portion of the petition as the copy of the amendment application has already been served upon the opposite parties and also to the supplementary affidavit. Counter affidavit shall specially indicate the compliance of rules 6,7 and 8 etc. of the of the Rules 1997 pertaining to final inquiry and whether any charge sheet was issued to the petitioner as also whether any notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 27 of the Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 read with sub rule (6) of Rules 1947 and whether separate proceedings were held for imposition of surcharge and its recovery. District Panchayat Raj Officer concerned shall do the needful by contacting the learned Chief Standing Counsel, as this matter is going on for quite some time. Let a copy of this order be issued to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges, today, itself.";