- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The petitioner had been the elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Arsian. By an order of the Dis trict Magistrate she was served with a notice, presumably, under Section 95 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act suspending his right to operate the financial accounts of the Panchayat in his capacity as the Prad han. This order was challenged in an ear lier Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31018 of 1998 by the petitioner and the Court, on 25-9-1998 on being satisfied that the legal provisions were apparently not followed, had stayed the order of the District Magistrate dated 10-3-1998 till further or ders. The Court, however, had also given the liberty to the District Magistrate to pass fresh orders after obtaining the report under Rule 4 (2) and Rule 8 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules (in short Rules of Removal ).
(2.) BY a subsequent order dated 1-2-1999 pursuant the aforesaid direction of the High Court the District Magistrate recorded a fresh order which is under chal lenge in the present writ petition. In view of a subsequent order having been passed and in view of the fact that this order was also under challenge theearlierwritpetitionno. 31018 of 1998 was thought infructuous and was disposed of accordingly. It was clearly ob served in that writ petition that any obser vation would not affect the right of any party in the subsequent writ petition. The present writ petition is thus directed against this subsequent order of the District Magistrate dated 1-2-1999 as per Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition. The respondents had been noticed through the learned Standing Counsel who was heard. Certain members of the concerned Gram Panchayat had also ap peared as caveater and they too were heard. The petitioner's Counsel had also been given a hearing. The order in question indicates that the District Magistrate was aware of his earlier order dated 10-3- 1998 and on order of the High Court recorded in the earlier writ petition on 25-9-1998. The instant order indicates that in view of the observation of the High Court the order dated 10-3-1998 was cancelled by a sub sequent order dated 17-11-1998. The Pradhan was "directed to file show-cause and explained the allegations levelled against her and, according to the District Magistrate, the clarification and explana tion were not satisfactory. The show-cause was issued in view of the finding in an enquiry which prima facie suggested commission of financial irregularities by the Pradhan. Ac cordingly, the District Magistrate, in the concluding lines his order dated 1-2-1999, directed that for conducting the develop ment works of the Gram Panchayat a three members committee that was constituted earlier would look to the administrative and financial activities of the Gram Panchayat. This order would be subject to any final order by the High Court.
(3.) UNDER the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act a Pradhan may be removed by internal action in the Panchayat i. e. by tabling a no confidence motion and rules are there how such mo tion was to be presented and carried on. A Pradhan may be removed by external ac tion as well and the provisions are con tained in Section 95 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The District Magistrate has been empowered to direct removal of a Pradhan according to the procedure indicated in that Section as also in the Rules of Removal. Section 95 (g), proviso, em powers the District Magistrate to suspend the financial and administrative power of the Pradhan pending an enquiry and to entrust these administrative powers to a three members committee constituted by him. This ceasure of power or this appoint ment, on a reading of the law, suggests that this power could be used during a final enquiry after the District Magistrate is satisfied about the misconduct of the Prad han upon a preliminary enquiry. In this instant case the preliminary enquiry has been conducted as it clear from the orders of the District Magistrate. He must, there fore, in terms of the provisions of the law, proceed with a final enquiry and only if that final enquiry pending the power could be exercised. A ceasure of power and ap pointment of a three members committee could not be done unless an enquiry is taken up, otherwise it would be an ar bitrary action and elected Pradhan would be debarred from exercising his rights for indefinite period without any enquiry. In the Rules of Removal also it has been indicated in Rule 6 as to what is to be done after a preliminary enquiry. An en quiry officer is to be appointed and he on the basis of the materials obtained in preliminary enquiry, is to prepare a sub stance of the allegations in the form of a charge and he is to serve a copy of the charge upon the delinquent Pradhan at the commencement of the enquiry.;