(1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla and Sri Siddharth Nandan on behalf of the complainant, who has filed caveat in this writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 30.3.2019 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Moradabad, suspending the financial and administrative powers of petitioner, who is stated to be nominated Pradhan in the temporary vacancy occurring on account of removal of earlier Pradhan.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been nominated as Pradhan, as per Section 12-J of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, in a temporary vacancy and without any preliminary inquiry as contemplated under U.P Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 his financial and administrative powers have been seized. The complaint of the complainant was accepted by the District Magistrate without any inquiry as per Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules. It has further been submitted that as per law, District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Moradabad, is not competent to pass the impugned order and it was for the District Magistrate to have passed such an order on the basis of preliminary inquiry report. Further submission is that provisions of Section 12-J of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act are relevant only for the purpose of nomination of the Pradhan on the sudden vacancy caused on the post and it is not a provision, which provides for any procedure for removal of such a Pradhan. Withdrawal of the money alleged against the petitioner was made for the development work and in case, Secretary, Neeraj Kumar Singh, did not submitted the details of the amount of withdrawal to the District Magistrate or District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, petitioner cannot be faulted with.