ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 7-11-1996 and 31-12-1996 Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It appears that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sudhiyani, district Padrauna. By the impugned order dated 7-11-1996 Annexure 7 to the petition, the administrative and financiat power of the petitioner have been taken away under the proviso to S. 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act as an interim measure pending proceeding against the petitioner for which the District Panchayat Raj Officer was appointed as enquiry officer. In the said order dated 7-11-1996 it is mentioned that there were certain allegations against the petitioner which have been" referred to in the said order which have resulted in a loss of Rs. 50,000/- to the Gram Sabha. By the order dated 31-12-1996 Annexure 8 to the petition three member committee was constituted for exercising the financial and administrative powers of the Gram Pradhan. These orders have been challenged in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. In my opinion, it was not necessary to give any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order.
5. In this connection S. 95(1) of the said Act states that the State Government may -
"(g) (remove a Pradhan, Up Pradhan or member of a Gram Panchayat) or a Joint Committee or a Bhumi Prabandhak Simiti or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyay a Panchayat if he-
(i) absents himself without sufficient cause from more than three consecutive meetings or sittings,
(ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever of if he is accused of or charged for ah offence involving moral turpitude;
(iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by this Act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest,
(iv) being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in politics, or
(v) suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (m) of S. 5-A;
Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or 0p-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities, such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government."
6. A purusal of the aforesaid provision shows that under S. 95(1)(g) the State Government can remove a Pradhan on certain grounds. The proviso to this provision which has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 9 of 1994 provides that if the Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities in enquiry, such Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions which shall thereupon be performed by a Committee consisting of three members of the Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government until the Gram Pradhan is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry. Thus it is evident that the proviso to S. 96(1)(g) contemplates an interim measure pending an enquiry. In my opinion, no opportunity of hearing is necessary before resorting to such an interim measure. It is only before passing the final order of removal that an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the Pradhan.
7. The action taken under proviso to S.95(1)(g) is analogous to suspension order passed against a Government servant. No opportunity of hearing need be given before passing such suspension order. The opportunity of hearing is only to be given before passing the dismissal order. The interim measure become necessary incertain situations where immediate action isrequired in view of the serious allegation made against someone. If immediate action is not taken and instead opportunity of hearing is given in which the procedure may make weeks or months, then in the mean time further financial and other irregularities might be done by Ihe accused person, Hence the law permits immediate action in the form of suspension or some other similar interim order pending the final proceedings, because unless such interim order is passed the financial and other irregularity may continue which may be detrimental in the interest of the Gram Panchayat. In view of the above I am of the opinion that it was not necessary that opportunity of hearing should have be given before passing the impugned order. However, the petitioner shall be given full opportunity of hearing in the enquiry and no order of removal will be passed before giving full opportunity of hearing.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the proviso to S. 95(1)(h) which states -
"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."
9. In my opinion, this proviso merely means that before passing an order of removal under S, 96(1)(g) opportunity of hearing has to be given. This proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that, even before passing the interim order opportunity of hearing must be given. If such interpretation is given it will militate against the very purpose of the proviso to S. 95(l)(g) which contemplates taking of immediate action in view of the serious allegations against the Pradhan. Hence I cannot agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the proviso to S. 95(1)(h) opportunity of hearing has to be given before passing the impugned order.
10. The petition is dismissed accordingly. However, I direct that the enquiry against the petitioner shall be completed within two months of the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.
11. Petition dismissed.