ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. N. Upadliaya, the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 2 ) BY this special appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 19. 12. 2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 54394 of 2002 (Moti Lal v. District Magistrate, lalitpur and Ors.) dismissing the writ petition. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are; the appellant is an elected Pradhan of Gram panchayat Kalyanapura, Block Virdha, Tahsil and District Lalitpur. Up- Pradhan made a complaint against the appellant. On the complaint a preliminary enquiry was directed. The complaint was signed by several other villagers along with Mangal Singh, Up-Pradhan. An affidavit was also filed by Mangal Singh sworn by Oath Commissioner, Land Conservation officer and Project Officer conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted preliminary enquiry report dated 13. 10. 2002. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the District magistrate dated 25. 10. 2002. The appellant submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The district Magistrate passed two orders on 27. 11. 2002 filed as Annexures-6 and 7 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. By first order dated 27. 11. 2002, the reply/explanation of the appellant was rejected and by second order passed on the same day the financial and administrative powers of the appellant were ceased and three members committee was constituted. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant raised following submissions in support of the appeal: (i) The complaint filed by Up-Pradhan and signed by several villagers was not in accordance with Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 1997 Rules ). Complaint ought to have been supported by an affidavit duly sworn by public notary. The complaint being not in accordance with Rules, 1997, the order of the District Magistrate falls on the ground. (ii) According to 1997 Rules, the preliminary enquiry is to be conducted by District Panchayat raj Officer and in the present case the preliminary enquiry has been conducted by Land conservation Officer and Project Officer who are not competent to conduct the preliminary enquiry. (ii) According to 1997 Rules, the preliminary enquiry is to be conducted by District Panchayat raj Officer and in the present case the preliminary enquiry has been conducted by Land conservation Officer and Project Officer who are not competent to conduct the preliminary enquiry. (iii) The appellant was not informed about the preliminary enquiry nor the said enquiry was conducted in presence of the appellant, hence the whole proceedings are vitiated in law . ( 5 ) SRI Ranvijai Singh, learned Standing Counsel, refuting the submissions of Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint filed against the appellant was not contrary to 1997 Rules. He submitted that complaint was made by Up- Pradhan of the village who is a public servant and by virtue of Rule 3, sub-rule (6), the procedure prescribed in Rule 3 is not attracted and there was no error in the complaint and the preliminary enquiry report has rightly been relied by the district Magistrate. The learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the District magistrate has found that prima facie the appellant is guilty of financial and other irregularities and power under proviso of Section 95 (l) (g) of UP. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has rightly been exercised. The learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that Rule 4 empowers the State Government to direct for preliminary enquiry on receipt of complaint or report referred to in Rule 3 or even "otherwise", hence there was no lack of power in the District Magistrate in directing the preliminary enquiry. ( 6 ) WE have considered the submissions of the Counsel for both the parties and perused the record. ( 7 ) THE first submission of Counsel for the appellant is based on Rule 3 of 1997 Rules. Rules 3 and 4 which are relevant for the present purpose are quoted below: "3. Procedure relating to complaints.- (1) Any person making a complaint against Pradhan or up-Pradhan may send his complaint to the State government or any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government. Rules 3 and 4 which are relevant for the present purpose are quoted below: "3. Procedure relating to complaints.- (1) Any person making a complaint against Pradhan or up-Pradhan may send his complaint to the State government or any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government. (2) Every complaint referred to in sub-rule (I) shall be accompanied by the complainants own affidavit in support thereof and also affidavits of all persons from whom he claims to have received information of facts relating to the accusation, verified before a notary together with all documents in his possession or power pertaining to the accusation. (3) Every complaint and affidavit under this rule as well as any schedule or Annexure thereto shall be verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings and affidavits, respectively. (4) Not less than three copies of complaint as well as each of its Annexures shall be submitted by the complainant. (5) A complaint, which does comply with any of the foregoing provisions of these rules, shall not be entertained. (6) It shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in the foregoing provisions of this rule if a complaint against a Pradhan or Up- Pradhan is made by a public servant. 4. Preliminary Enquiry.- (1) The State Government may, on the receipt of a complaint or report referred to in Rule 3 or otherwise order the Enquiry Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out if there is a prima facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter. (2) The Enquiry Officer shall conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit his report to the State Government within thirty days of his having been so ordered. " ( 8 ) THE copy of the complaint on the basis of which preliminary enquiry has been ordered has been annexed by the appellant as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The complaint is also supported by an affidavit of Mangal Singh who is said to be up-Pradhan. Affidavit of Mangal Singh has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The Up-Pradhan, Mangal Singh, is himself complainant along with several other villagers. The complaint is also supported by an affidavit of Mangal Singh who is said to be up-Pradhan. Affidavit of Mangal Singh has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The Up-Pradhan, Mangal Singh, is himself complainant along with several other villagers. The complaint being supported by an affidavit, there is a compliance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of 1997 Rules. The reliance of learned Standing Counsel on sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 is wholly justified. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of 1997 Rules provides that if a complaint against a Pradhan is made by public servant, it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in the provisions of Rule 3. It is not disputed that complaint against appellant was by Up-Pradhan. Section 28 of the Act provides that every member or servant of a nyaya Panchayat, Gram Panchayat, Joint Committee or any other committee constituted under this Act shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian penal Code. Up-Pradhan being member of Gram Panchayat is a public servant within the meaning of Section 28 of the Act. The complaint against the appellant being filed by up-Pradhan, the procedure as prescribed in Rule 3 to sub-rule (1) to (5) was not attracted and no fault can be found with the complaint. The submission of learned Standing Counsel that preliminary enquiry can be ordered even without there being any complaint also has merit. Rule 4 of 1997 Rules is a enabling provision giving power to the State Government to order holding of a preliminary enquiry with a view to find out that there is a prima facie case for formal enquiry or not. The words "or otherwise" occurring in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 are of wide import. Even if no complaint is filed as envisaged by Rule 3, the State Government does not lack of power to direct holding of preliminary enquiry. There may be cases in which the District magistrate or other officials charged with looking the affairs of Gram Panchayat may receive information or may personally finds fact requiring holding of preliminary enquiry. Even if no complaint is filed as envisaged by Rule 3, the State Government does not lack of power to direct holding of preliminary enquiry. There may be cases in which the District magistrate or other officials charged with looking the affairs of Gram Panchayat may receive information or may personally finds fact requiring holding of preliminary enquiry. For example, the Sub-Divisional Officer who is incharge of a sub-division if finds a Pradhan abusing his position and committing serious financial irregularities can report the matter to the District magistrate who is authority competent to order of preliminary enquiry. The report of sub-Divisional Officer may form basis for directing a preliminary enquiry. The District magistrate may after personally coming to know some serious lapse on the part of the Pradlian may direct preliminary enquiry without there begin any complaint or report. In the present case the complaint submitted by the Up-Pradhan was valid material for directing preliminary enquiry, hence the submission of Counsel for the appellant has no substance. ( 9 ) THE word "otherwise" as referred to in Rule 4 has also been considered in 1998 (3) AWC 1892 ; Chunmun v. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and Anr. . It was held by this Court in paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment :" 8. The expressions or otherwise used in Rule 4 (1) of the Enquiry Rules has a meaning ejusdem generis with "complaint or report" and only enables the District Magistrate to order the District panchayat Raj Officer to conduct preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out If there is prima facie case for a formal enquiry in he matter not only on the basis of a complaint received under rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules but he may do so even on the basis of a report received otherwise disclosing the cause for holding a preliminary enquiry in the matter. A complaint by a public servant under Rule 3 (6) may partake the nature of a report received otherwise within the meaning of Rule 4 of the Enquiry Rules. Similar expression used in Rule 5 of the Enquiry Rules enables the District Magistrate to direct the Enquiry Officer to hold a formal enquiry on the basis of the report or information other than the one contained in Rule 4 (2) of the Enquiry rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Similar expression used in Rule 5 of the Enquiry Rules enables the District Magistrate to direct the Enquiry Officer to hold a formal enquiry on the basis of the report or information other than the one contained in Rule 4 (2) of the Enquiry rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 10 ) IN the present case, we are concerned with the expression or otherwise as used in Rule 4 and no exception can be taken to the observations made in paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment while construing the word otherwise in Rule 4. ( 11 ) THE next submission of Counsel for the appellant that in the present case enquiry has not been conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, hence the whole proceeding is vitiated has also no substance. The definition of Enquiry Officer as contained in sub-clause (c) of Rule 2 of 1997 Rules has been amended by notification dated 5. 10. 2002. The amended Rule 2 (c) is quoted as below : "2 (c) enquiry Officer means the District Panchayat Raj Officer or any other district level officer, to be nominated by the District Magistrate. " ( 12 ) IN the present case, the appellant himself has stated in Paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application that enquiry has been conducted by the Land Conservation officer and Project Officer. The Land Conservation Officer and Project Officer both are district level officers, hence were fully covered by definition of Rule 2 (c) of 1997 Rules and it cannot be said that they were not authorised to hold the preliminary enquiry. The show cause notice dated 25th October, 2002 which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, refers the Enquiry Officer as Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Lalitpur and pariyojana Nideshak, Zila Vikas Abhikaran, Lalitpur. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant that only District Panchayat Raj Officer can conduct the enquiry cannot be accepted. ( 13 ) THE third submission of Counsel for appellant has also no substance. While holding a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4 of 1997 Rules the Enquiry Officer is not obliged to give opportunity to appellant nor the Rules require holding of preliminary enquiry in the presence or appellant. ( 13 ) THE third submission of Counsel for appellant has also no substance. While holding a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4 of 1997 Rules the Enquiry Officer is not obliged to give opportunity to appellant nor the Rules require holding of preliminary enquiry in the presence or appellant. ( 14 ) WE do not find any error in the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The District Magistrate on being prima facie satisfied that the appellant has misused the amount in various development works has rightly ceased the financial and administrative powers of the appellant. No error can be found in the order of the District Magistrate dated 27th november, 2002. It is, however, observed that the formal enquiry against the appellant be expeditiously held by the District Magistrate. ( 15 ) THE special appeal has no merit and is dismissed subject to observation that enquiry against the appellant be expeditiously held. .