R.L. Gulati, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner Hari Chand was a Pradhan of Gaon Sabba Wazidpur Kutubpur, Tahsil Firozabad in the district of Agra. Complaints were received against him of derelection of duty on his part of serious nature such as forgery of the record of the Gaon Sabha, connivance at the encroachment by some persons over the land of the Gaon Sabha (his failure to prosecute diligently the proceedings against one Roshan Lal for certain encroachments upon the land of the Gaon Sabha) and finally of having misappropriated the funds of the Gaon Sabha and to have misused his position and power as a Pradhan off the Sabha. A preliminary enquiry was held in the charges and a formal charge -sheet was served upon him on 17 -10 -1967. He was required to render his explanation and also to lead such evidence in defence as he desired. After considering the material on the record, Sri S.L.S. Kumaiyan, SDM, Firozabad passed an order dated 17 -5 -1968 finding him guilty of the charges and issued to him a notice to show cause within ten days as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Pradhan. After considering the explanation filed by the Petitioner Sri B.P. Verma who in the meantime had come to occupy the post of SDO/SDM, Firozabad passed an order dated 18 -11 -1968 removing him from the office of the Pradhan. The Petitioner then appealed and his appeal was rejected by Sri S.N. Gangulee, ADM (E), Agra by his order dated 21 -4 -1969. The Petitioner has now filed the present writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution and has prayed for certiorari quashing the order of the SDO removing him from the office of the Pradhan as also the order passed by the ADM dismissing his appeal.
(2.) TWO grounds have been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of the writ petition. The first ground is that Sub -clause (g) of Sub -section (1) of Section 95 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 under which the proceedings were taken against the Petitioner, does not authorise an action against a Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha because that provision applies only to an office -bearer of the Gaon Sabha and according to the learned Counsel, the Pradhan is not an office -bearer. His second ground is that the impugned order removing the Petitioner from the office of the Pradhan has been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice. As regards the first contention it has simply to be stated to be rejected. The Gaon Sabha is established Under Section 3 of the Panchayat Raj Act for a village or a group of villages. Its membership consists of every person whose name is, for the time being, included in the electoral roll for the Gaon Sabha. According to Section 4, every Gaon Sabha is to be a body corporate. Like any other body corporate, its affairs are to be managed by its office -bearers while its ministerial work is done through salaried staff. Section 11 -A of the Act provides that there shall be a Pradhan and an Up Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. Section 5 -B prescribes the qualification of a Pradhan and is in the following terms: 5 -B. Qualification for holding office of Pradhan: A member of a Gaon Sabha shall not be qualified to be chosen as Pradhan unless he is not less than 30 years of age. Section 12 -K talks about the tenure of the office of Pradhan and Up Pradhan and reads as under: 12 -K. Tenure of office of Pradhan and Up Pradhan: Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub -section (2) of Section 11 -B or 11 -C the Pradhan and Up Pradhan shall continue in office until their respective successors are elected. From the provisions extracted above, it is quite plain that the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha is its office holder and he has been termed as such. Under Section 11, one of the duties of the Pradhan is to call and hold two general meetings each year and also to call and hold an extraordinary meeting on the written requisition of the prescribed authority or by not less than 1/5th of the members of the Sabha. It is difficult to imagine as to who else can be an office bearer of the Gaon Sabha if the Pradhan is not its office bearer. The learned Counsel has not brought to our notice any statutory provision or any decided case to support this extraordinary proposition of his. We find absolutely no force in this contention of the learned Counsel and the same is rejected.
(3.) IT was then contended that even if the Pradhan is an office bearer of the Gaon Sabha he can be removed only Under Section 14 of the Act which deals specifically with that matter. Section 14 provides that the Gaon Sabha may at a meeting specially convened for the purpose remove the Pradhan by a majority of two -thirds of the members present and voting. His argument is that there being a specific provision for the removal of the Pradhan, his removal can only take place under that section and the application of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act should, therefore, be restricted only to the office bearers other than the Pradhan. There is a clear fallacy in this argument. From the scheme of the Act, it appears that the Pradhan can be removed in two ways. He can either be removed Under Section 14 by the Gaon Sabha itself if the Pradhan for any reason loses the confidence of the Sabha or can be removed by the State Government Under Section 95(1)(g) for any of the reasons mentioned therein. Section 95 occurs in Ch. VII which deals with the external control exercised by the State Government over the affairs of a Gaon Sabha. In the exercise of that control, the State Government has been invested with the power Under Clause (g) of Sub -section (1) of Section 95 to suspend or remove an office bearer of the Gaon Sabha if he is found guilty of any of the defaults enumerated in Sub -clauses (i), (ii) and (v). He can also be removed Under Clause (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 95 if he does not possess the qualification specified in Section 5 -B. In other words, a Pradhan can be removed as a result of the internal action by the Gaon Sabha itself or as a result of the external control exercised by the State Government. There is no conflict between the two provisions nor are the two provisions mutually exclusive. In the present case the SDO exercising the powers of the State Government Under Section 95(1)(g), delegated to him Under Section 96 A of the Act, has taken the impugned action against the Petitioner for which there was ample justification.;