JUDGMENT M. Quddusi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ram Lagan Mishra and learned standing counsel.
2. The controversy Involved In the present writ petition is as to whether the respondent No. 4 viz. Alp Sankhyak Kalyan Adhikari (Task Force Officer). Block Baldirai, Sultanpur. is empowered to hold preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Section 95 (1) (g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, read with U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 [hereinafter referred to as the Enquiry Rules) or not ?
3. The petitioner-Smt. Shantl ts a duly elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. Saini, Block Baldirai, district, Sultanpur. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 (Enquiry Officer) is not an authorized person to hold preliminary enquiry under the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Enquiry Rules, 1997, published in the U. P. Gazette Extra Part-IV Section (kha) dated 29.5.1997 inasmuch as the impugned show-cause notice dated 28.12.1999 Issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sultanpur (respondent No. 2) is liable to be set aside.
4. The Enquiry Rules being relevant for the controversy involved in the instant petition are quoted herein below :
"4. Preliminary Enquiry.-- (1) The State Government may, on the receipt of complaint or report referred to in Rule 3, or otherwise order to the District Panchayat Raj Officer to conduct preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out if there is a prima facie case for a formal Inquiry in the matter.
(2) : The District Panchayat Raj Officer shall conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditlously as possible and submit his report to the State Government within a fortnight of his having been so ordered."
5. In this case, the matter In question relates to the preliminary enquiry and not a regular enquiry. The provisions regarding regular enquiry has been given In Rule 5 which is reproduced below :
5. Inquiry Officer.--Where the State Government is of the opinion, on the basis of the report referred to in sub-rule (2) or otherwise that an inquiry should be held against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or Member under the proviso to clause (g) of subsection (1) of Section 95. It shall, by an order, ask the Inquiry Officer to hold the enquiry.
6. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that vide Notification dated 30th April, 1997. the powers of the State Government have been delegated to the District Magistrates. Hence, all the powers of the State Government are now vested in the District Magistrates for their respective districts and the Alp Sankhyak Kalyan Adhlkari (respondent No. 4) is not below the rank of District Panchayat Raj Officer. It has also been averred in the counter-affidavit that according to Rule 20 read with Rule 4, it is provided that an officer not below the rank of District Panchayat Raj Officer appointed by the State Government is competent to conduct enquiry against Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and the Members. Learned standing counsel has also placed reliance on the same. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards Rule 2 (c) where the definition of Inquiry Officer has been given which is as under :
"Inquiry Officer' means an officer not below the rank of the District Panchayat Ra] Officer, appointed as such, by the State Government."
7. A bare perusal of Rule 5 indicates that the State Government after receipt of the report under Rule 4 (2) may hold regular enquiry and for that purpose, an Inquiry Officer be appointed. Now. the question for determination emerges as to who can be the Inquiry Officer. For this purpose, the definition clause has been quoted above. Hence, the definition of the Inquiry Officer is related to Rule 5 and not to Rule-4, i.e., the preliminary enquiry inasmuch as in Rule 4, the word 'Inquiry Officer' has not been used but the designation of District Panchayat Raj Officer has only been used which shows that the definition of the Inquiry Officer in the definition clause has no relevance with the conduct of preliminary enquiry. Therefore, in the matter in hand, where the matter relates to preliminary enquiry only, neither Rule 20 nor Rule 5 would be applicable and only the District Panchayat Raj Officer has been authorized to conduct a preliminary enquiry according to Rule 4 of the Rules.
8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is clear that the aforesaid rules enable the District Magistrate only to order the District Panchayat Raj Officer concerned to conduct preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out if there is a prima facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter. An Alp Sankhyak Kalyan Adhikari (respondent No. 4) in the present case is not competent to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4 of the Enquiry Rules and since no enquiry was held under the relevant rules, the report of the Enquiry Officer (respondent No. 4) cannot be made the basis of an action under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act.
9. In view of the above, the District Magistrate may, of course, order a formal enquiry to be held even on the basis of reports received 'otherwise' than through the District Panchayat Raj Officer under Rule 4 of the Enquiry Rules but in that event, no action can be taken under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) (9) of the Act until the State Government is satisfied by the preliminary enquiry that on the basis of preliminary enquiry report, an enquiry should be held against Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and the Members and until a report is received from the Enquiry Officer under Rule 7 of the Enquiry Rules.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above. I am of the opinion that the action taken by the District Magistrate under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act on the basts of the report submitted by the Alp Sankhyak Kalyan Adhikari, Sultanpur (respondent No. 4) in the present case is violative of the constitutional scheme and the provisions of the Act read with the Enquiry Rules, 1997, mentioned above.
11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.3.1999 passed by the District Magistrate Sultanpur (respondent No. 1) is quashed. However, it will be open to the District Magistrate concerned to proceed in accordance with rules afresh. No order as to costs.