Rajan Roy,J. - (1.) This Court on 17.4.2019 passed the following order: "Perused the records which has been produced before the Court by the learned standing counsel Sri Maurya. Yet again the District Magistrate, Gonda has passed the an order on 17.11.2018 in purported exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner and constituted a three members committee for performing the functions of the Gram Pradhan without appointing any Inquiry Officer in terms of Rule 2(c) U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 to conduct an in inquiry in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1997 and without there being any preliminary inquiry report in gross violation of the Rules, 1997 and law declared in the case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2011 (29) LCD 221. This Court has earlier issued directions to the State Government to provide necessary guidance to the Sub-ordinate authorities. List/put up this case on 24.04.2019 amongst first ten cases in the cause list to enable Sri Maurya learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek specific instructions from the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj as to whether those judgments have been complied with and what directions have been issued to the District Magistrate etc. with regard to the legal position under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the Rules of 1997 and what steps have been taken or are being taken in pursuance to the judgments passed in Writ Petition Nos.19987 (MS) of 2017, 10676 (MS) of 2015 and 20971 of 2018. In the meantime, the impugned order shall remain stayed as prima-facie Rules, 1997 and the law on the subject has not been followed, till the next date of listing. The record which has been produced today before the Court shall again be produced by the learned standing counsel on the next date of listing. Let a copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within twenty four hours."
(2.) In pursuance thereof the learned C.S.C. Sri J.P. Maurya has placed before the Court government order dated 18.4.2019 which has been issued to all the District Magistrates, however, this Court finds that there is another aspect of the matter which has been considered in the judgment dated 11.3.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.20971 (MS) of 2018 wherein the provisions of section 95(1)(g) has been considered and it has been held as under: "During the course of arguments one issue which arose was as to whether the final inquiry report is required to be given to the Pradhan before passing of the final order of his removal from office or not ? One needs to understand that the office of the Gram Pradhan is an office of election, therefore, his removal cannot be done in a casual manner. Even if he is guilty of irregularities and illegalities, the law itself prescribes a procedure for the same. The IInd proviso to section 95(1)(g) very categorically provides that no action shall be taken under clause (f), Clause (g), except after giving to the Body or person concerned, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed. Sub-section (2) of section 95(1)(g) provides that a person removed under sub-Clause (iii) and (iv) of Clause (g) of sub-section (1) of this section shall not be entitled to be re-elected or re-appointed to any office under this Act for a period of five years or such lessor period as the State Government may order in the notice. A finality is attached to the order of removal passed under the said provision by sub-section (3) of section 95(1)(g). All these provisions are indicative of the importance attached to the elective office of Pradhan and they are meant to protect an elected Pradhan from illegal, biased or unfair treatment. Now the words "a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed" appearing in the IInd proviso to section 95(1)(g) obviously mean a fair procedure before passing an order of removal and it is here that the Rules of 1997 framed by the State Government come into play, as, they prescribe a detailed fair procedure to ensure fairness in action against the Gram Pradhan. Though this Court finds that there is no specific provision in Rules 1997 for permitting a copy of the final inquiry report to the Gram Pradhan before passing of an order of his removal by the State Government or by the District Magistrate, upon whom the powers have been delegated under section 96-A as informed by Sri Maurya, the court finds that the Rules 1997 only cover the procedure up to the submission of records of inquiry before the State Government. What the State Government should do or has to do before passing of an order of removal of Gram Pradhan is not mentioned in the Rules, therefore, the Court has to revert back to the second proviso to section 95(1)(g) referred hereinabove and give meaning to the words "a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed." As the inquiry report is the net result of the inquiry into the allegations against the Gram Pradhan, therefore, it is an adverse material against him which is ultimately the basis for any action proposed to be taken against him under section 95(1)(g), therefore, this court is of the view that the principles of Natural Justice require that the words used in the IInd proviso to section 95(1)(g) need to be read and understood to mean that such inquiry report should be given to the Gram Pradhan alongwith a show-cause notice to enable him to challenge the findings contained therein and/or the manner in which the inquiry has been conducted, for example, if it is de hors the procedure prescribed in the Rules 1997, so that, this aspect of the matter can also be seen by the District Magistrate while passing the final order in the proceedings."
(3.) In view of the above enunciation of law final inquiry report is required to be furnished to the Gram Pradhan alongwith the show-cause notice before passing the order of removal in keeping with requirement of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed under the second proviso to section 95(1)(g). The government order dated 18.4.2019 does not deal with this aspect of the matter, therefore, it would be appropriate for the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P., to issue a government order in this regard also to all the District Magistrates in the State of U.P. so as to avoid further litigation in the matter.;