JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri M.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Respondents are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a week thereafter.
3. List on 31st August, 2005.
4. The financial and administrative of the elected Pradhan, namely, Shiv Devi (petitioner) were ceased under order of the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra dated 20th November, 2002. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5444 of 2002. In the said writ petition the Court did not grant any interim order to the petitioner, the writ petition is still pending. Subsequently the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Sonbhadra passed orders dated 31st March, 2003 and dated 5th April, 2003, whereby the Pradhan as well as two other persons namely, District Panchayat Raj Adhikari and Secretary, were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 29708/- said to be loss caused to the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter the District Magistrate passed an order dated 23rd December, 2003 restoring the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the District Magistrate Ramvyas Vishawakarma (respondent No. 3) filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 162 of 2004 (Ramavyas Vishwakarma v. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and Ors.). In the said writ petition initially an interim order was granted by this Court on 7th January, 2004. However, the said writ petition was disposed of finally on 5th March, 2004 by this Court and order dated 7th January, 2004 was quashed with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra to take final decision qua in the proceedings initiated against the Pradhan strictly in accordance with law. The District Magistrate instead of getting final enquiry conducted against the Pradhan in accordance with the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997), has proceeded to pass an order dated 2nd August, 2004 whereby the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan were restored with a direction upon the Pradhan to deposit a sum of Rs. 19854/-. The order of the District Magistrate dated 2nd August, 2004 restoring the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan was again challenged before this Court by Sri Ramvyas Vishwakarma (respondent No. 3) by means of writ petition No. 31601 of 2004. The writ petition filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed, the order dated 2nd August, 2004 was quashed vide judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2005, in view of the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) proviso of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 as also in view of the judgment reported in 1999 (1) UPLBEC 718. The Court in the said judgment recorded a categorically finding that since the final enquiry has not been conducted against the Pradhan and he has not been exonerated of the charges levelled against her, therefore, there is no question of administrative and financial powers of the Pradhan being restored.
5. The District Magistrate has now passed an order dated 21st June, 2005 in alleged compliance of the judgment and order of this Court dated 2nd March, 2005 whereby the earlier order dated 2nd August, 2005 has been revoked and the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan have again been ceased by restoration of the order dated 30th November, 2002. The order now passed by the District Magistrate dated 2nd Dune, 2005 has been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition amongst others on the ground that under the provisions of Rules of 1997 specific times frame for holding preliminary enquiry as well as for holding final enquiry has been provided. The authorities cannot keep the enquiry pending for years and thereby interfere with the rights of the elected Pradhan on the basis of preliminary enquiry alone.
6. In order to appreciate the contention so raised reference may be had to Rule 8 of the Rules of 1997, which regulates the time fixed for holding final enquiry and reads as follows:
"8. Submitting the report to the Government.---
[Enquiry Officer shall conclude the enquiry within six months from the date of receipt of complaint and forward to State Government the records of the enquiry which shall include-
(a) the report prepared by him under Rule-7;
(b) the written statement of defence, if any, of the person against whom the enquiry has been held;
(c) the oral and documentary evidence produced during the course of the enquiry;
(d) written briefs, if any, filed during the course of the enquiry; and
(e) the orders, if any, made by the State Government and the Enquiry Officer in regard to the enquiry."
7. The period may not be mandatory but still the authority are required to act under law with all promptness in the proceedings initiated against the Pradhan under Section 95 (1) (g) proviso of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act without any uncalled for delay. It is to be kept in mind that the Pradhans of Gram Panchayat are elected by a democratic process, interference in powers of the elected representatives of the people by the administrative authorities must be in strict conformity with the statutory provision.
8. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petition on 15th July, 2005 required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions from the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra as to whether any final enquiry in terms of Rule 8 (a) of the Rules of 1997, in respect of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Shiv Devi, Pradhan of village Jhanmsheela, District Sonbhadra, has been submitted till date or not. The learned Standing Counsel has made a statement before this Court today on the basis of the instructions so received from the office of the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra that final enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner of Division against the petitioner and the Commissioner, in its report has held that the charges as have been levelled against the petitioner are found to be corrected.
9. From the instructions so received by the learned Standing Counsel, it is apparently clear that final enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of Rules of 1997 by a nominated District Level Officer has not been conducted against the Pradhan till date nor any final enquiry report referable to the statutory rules have been obtained by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra. It is further apparent that the Commissioner of Division was not nominated by the District Magistrate as the district level officer, to conduct the final enquiry against the Pradhan under the provisions of Rule of 1997. A period of three years have elapsed, since the administrative and financial powers of the Pradhan under Section 95 (1) (g) proviso of the Act of 1947 were ceased. Fresh elections of the Gram Pradhan are to be held in near future.
10. In such circumstances, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the respondent-authorities have failed to act in conformity with the statutory provisions, by not getting a final enquiry conducted against the Pradhan (petitioner), by a nominated officer within reasonable time. Therefore, they not be permitted to continue with the ceasatlon of the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan.
11. The petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim order.
12. Till the next date of listing the operation of the order dated 2nd June, 2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra shall remain stayed and respondents shall not interfere with the administrative and financial powers of the Pradhan (petitioner).
13. A copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges by 27th July, 2005. 23.07.2005.