JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - This is a petition against the removal of a Pradhan under Section 95(l)(g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan in the year 1972. Subsequently complaints were filed against him and the Sub-Divisional Officer ordered the complaints to be enquired into by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar in his turn tent down the enquiry to the Naib Tahsildar. On 19 5 76 the Naib-Tahsildar examined the petitioner alone and on the basis of the statement submitted his report on 20-6-76 An application was moved by the complainant against the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Soraon, Allahabad setting aside the the report of the Naib Tahsi dar alleging that it was ex parte and the Tahsildar or the Sub-Divisional Officer him self may conduct the enquiry. Subsequently the Tahsildar was ordered to make an enquiry into the matter after hearing both the parties. On 30th June, 1976, the opposite party complainant produced two witnesses. The case was thereupon adjourned for 3rd July. 1976 and on that two more witnesses were examined. The case thereafter. could not to taken up till 17th July, 1976 The petitioner filed certain papers and sought time to produce his evidence. The order Sheet of 17th July, 1976, shows that the case was thereafter adjourned for 24th July, 1976. On 24th July, 1976 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned for 5-1976. Annexure "5" of the writ petition is another application moved by the. complainant before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Soraon, Allahabad. In that application a complaint was made that proceedings were being prolonged inasmuch as the petitioner was not submitting the full papers without which it was not possible to have the complete charges. An order was passed on the same day by the Sub-Divisional Officer Soraon calling for the file from the Tahsildar. The papers seen to have been sent on the same day. Thereafter on 5-8 1976 the papers were summoned by the Sub Divisional Officer and the petitioner was ordered to submit the same on 7th August, 1976. However, the petitioner did not produce the papers as ordered and a warning was issued and he was called upon to submit the papers immediately. The petitioner then submitted the papers on 13- 8- 1976. 2. However, the petitioner did not produce the papers as ordered and a warning was issued and he was called upon to submit the papers immediately. The petitioner then submitted the papers on 13- 8- 1976. 2. It so seems that an application for transferring the case from the court of the Sub-Divisional Office Soraon to some other court was moved on 12-8-1976. However, the case was decided on the basis of the record by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 8.9.76. An appeal was filed against that order before the District Magistrate, Allahabad which was decided by the. Additional Collector, Allahabad by order dated 29 8 77, He dismissed the appeal holding that there was proper enquiry and the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the adjournment of the case on 24th July, 1976, the evidence was to be produced on 5th August, 1976. According to the learned counsel, that state never reached and the judgment was pronounced. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that full opportunity had teen given to the petitioner to produce his evidence. He had even cross-examined the witnesses that were produced by the complainant and no further opportunity is contemplated under the provisions of the Act. No specific procedure for affording an opportunity is given under the Act and the principles of natural justice were fully complied with in giving hearing to the petitioner. 5. From the record it is clear that on 24th July, 1976 the case was adjorneed for evidence of the parties. It so seems that by abrupt transfer of the tile lo the Sub-Divisional Officer the proceedings were cut short and the parties could not produce their evidence in the matter. 6. In the circumstances we feel that the parties should be given further opportunity of adducing evidence before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Soraon, Allahabad. Counsel for both the parties agree that the evidence already on record may be read as evidence by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 7. It appears that the charges against the .petitioner are vary grave. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that charge had been taken over from the petitioner even before the interim order of stay was passed by the Court and he docs not hold charge of the office of Pradhan at present. 8. 7. It appears that the charges against the .petitioner are vary grave. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that charge had been taken over from the petitioner even before the interim order of stay was passed by the Court and he docs not hold charge of the office of Pradhan at present. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 8.9.1976 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and dated 29-8-1977 passed by the Additional Collector, Allahabad in appeal both quashed. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Soraon, Allahabad is directed to decided the matter afresh after affording lo the parties reasonable opportunity of producing further evidence and hearing them in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above He shad decide the case expeditiously, if possible within two months. In view of the seriousness of the charges against him this order will not, however, entitle the petitioner to take back the charge of the office of Pradhan and the interim arrangement made in this behalf shall continue till final orders are passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.