JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the order dated 7.4.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Mahoba, proceeding to place the petitioner under suspension in exercise of its authority under the First proviso of Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and constituting three members Committee to look after the administrative and financial matter of the Gram Panchayat. 2. Petitioner contested the election of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Purwa Jaitpur and was elected. Petitioner claims to have been performing and discharging duties as Pradhan as envisaged under law. Complaint was made that during the course of inspection it has been found that mid-day meal has not been provided in Primary School and in this regard inquiries were made by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kulpahar, District Mahoba on 27.3.2008 and thereafter matter was reported to District Magistrate, Mahoba and District Magistrate, Mahoba on 7.4.2008 has proceeded to pass order impugned ceasing financial and administrative power. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that Tehsildar, Kulpahar on 27.3.2008 made complaint against Pradhan when he found on his inspection on 19.2.2008 that the petitioner was committing various irregularities in discharge of its duties. Deputy District Magistrate Kulpahar district Mahoba on 27.3.2008 made inspection himself and found irregularities in preparation of mid day meal, as such submitted report to District Magistrate Mahoba and District Magistrate after considering the report submitted passed order in question, as such there is no infirmity in the view which has been taken. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and taking plea that order passed is vitiated as Collector has not issued any order appointing Inquiry Officer to make preliminary inquiry and report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is in the shape of complaint to initiate proceedings against the petitioner and same cannot be treated as preliminary inquiry report as such action taken is unjustifiable. 5. Supplementary affidavit has also filed stating therein that complaint cannot be treated to be preliminary inquiry report as such entire proceedings are vitiated. 6. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. 5. Supplementary affidavit has also filed stating therein that complaint cannot be treated to be preliminary inquiry report as such entire proceedings are vitiated. 6. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. 6-A. Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing alongwith Sri Manoj Gautam, Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case petitioner has been divested of exercising financial and administrative powers otherwise than in accordance with the procedure provided under first proviso to Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997, as such exercise of authority in the present case is nothing but misuser of authority as such action taken is unsustainable. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that District Magistrate has ample authority to take action as is envisaged in 1997 Rules as per report referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 or “otherwise” and same clearly enjoins the District Magistrate to take action as such no fault can be found in the action taken once prima facie material is there. 8. In order to appreciate the respective arguments, the provisions of Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and Rules 3, 4 and 5 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 are being quoted below : “U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 “95. Inspection.—(1) The State Government may— (a).......... (b)......... (c)........ (d)......... (e)...... (f)........ Inspection.—(1) The State Government may— (a).......... (b)......... (c)........ (d)......... (e)...... (f)........ (g) remove a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or member of a Gram Pachayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if he— (i) absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings; (ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an 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; (iii-a) has taken benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section 11 or sub-section (3) of Section 12, as the case may be, on the basis of a false declaration subscribed by him stating that he is a member of Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribes or the backward classes, as the case may be; (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 Section 5-A : Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-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 a Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government. “The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 3. Procedure relating to complaints.—(1) Any person making complaint against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan may send his complaint to the State Government or any other officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government. (2) Every complaint referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by the complainant’s own affidavit in support thereof and also affidavit of all persons from whom he claims to have received information of facts relating to accusation, verified before a notary, together with all documents in his possession or power pertaining to accusation. (2) Every complaint referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by the complainant’s own affidavit in support thereof and also affidavit of all persons from whom he claims to have received information of facts relating to accusation, verified before a notary, together with all documents in his possession or power pertaining to 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 the complaint as well as each of its annexure shall be submitted by the complainant. (5) A complaint which does not comply with any of the foregoing provisions of this Rule 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 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 prima facie case for a formal inquiry in the matter. 5. Enquiry Officer.—Where the State Government is of the opinion, on the basis of report referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 or otherwise that an enquiry should be held against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or Member under the proviso to clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95 it shall forthwith constitute a committee envisaged by proviso to clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Act and by an order ask an Enquiry Officer, other than the Enquiry Officer nominated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, to hold enquiry.” 9. A bare perusal of the provision of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 framed in exercise of authority conferred by Section 110 read with clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 would go to show that Pradhan who has pivotal role to play in exercise of powers and discharge functions of the Gram Panchayat, in the event of failure to perform and discharge function can be deprived of his right to perform and discharge duties of Pradhan on permanent basis as well as on interim basis in exercise of authority vested under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and in exercise of authority vested under the First proviso to clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95. Authority conferred by First proviso to clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95 provides that administrative and financial power of Pradhan can be curtailed when in any inquiry held by such persons in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities. 10. Said provision has been subject matter of interpretation in the case of Chunmun v. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, 1998(89) RD, 771 and therein view taken is that word “otherwise” used in Rule 5 of Enquiry Rules enables the District Magistrate to form requisite opinion that a Pradhan or Up Pradhan has prima-facie committed financial and other irregularities within the meaning of the first proviso “otherwise” than on the basis of the report of preliminary enquiry conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer under Rule 4 of the report submitted by Enquiry Officer under Rule 8 of the Enquiry Rules cannot be countenanced for the reasons that it would offend the express language—"In an enquiry held by such person in such manner as may be prescribed” used by the Legislature in the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act. The principle well settled is that a subordinate legislation cannot directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly, over reach the provisions of the Act. Relevant paragraphs 8 and 9 is being quoted below : “8. The principle well settled is that a subordinate legislation cannot directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly, over reach the provisions of the Act. Relevant paragraphs 8 and 9 is being quoted below : “8. The expression “prima-facie found” read with expression “in an enquiry held by such person in such manner as may be prescribed” used by the Legislature in the first proviso to Section 95 (1)(g) of the Act unequivocally suggests that the requisite prima facie finding must be arrived at on consideration of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer under Rule 4(2) or the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer under Rule 8 of the Enquiry Rules. Any other view of the matter would be tantamount to over reaching the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the word ‘otherwise’ used in Rule 5 Enquiry Rules enables the District Magistrate to form requisite opinion that a Pradhan or Up Pradhan has prima-facie committed financial and other irregularities within the meaning of the first proviso otherwise than on the basis of the report of preliminary enquiry conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer under Rule 4 of the report submitted by Enquiry Officer under Rule 8 of the Enquiry Rules cannot be countenanced for the reasons that it would offend the express language—"in an enquiry held by such person in such manner as may be prescribed”—used by the Legislature in the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act. The principle well settled is that a subordinate legislation cannot directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly, over reach the provisions of the Act. 9. The expression 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 find out if there is prima facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter not only on the basis of 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 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. The expression ‘or otherwise’ used in Rule 5 however, does not, in my opinion empower the District Magistrate to form the requisite opinion under the first proviso on the basis of a report other than the one submitted under the Enquiry Rules i.e. the report referred in Rule 4 (2) or Rule 7 of the said Rules. At the risk of repetition, it may be observed that the consequences visualised by the first proviso can ensure only upon a prima facie finding being recorded by the District Magistrate on the basis of a report submitted under Rule 4 (2) or Rule 7 of the Enquiry Rules.” 11. Said judgment has been followed in the case of Smt. Sandhya Gupta v. District Magistrate, Auraiya, 1999 (99) RD 246 wherein following guidelines have been enunciated : “1. It may clearly understood that Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or Member of the Gram Panchayat is virtually a constitutional elected functionary and he cannot be removed or stripped off his statutory powers and obligations in a casual manner without there being solid foundation for initiating action against him. 2. The power of the removal of the above functionaries is conferred on the State Government in view of the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) of the Act which power ultimately has been delegated to all the District Magistrate in the State. 3. A Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a member of the Gram Panchayat etc. may be removed from the office on a number of grounds. Generally in most of the cases, the ground mentioned in sub-clause (iii) of Clause (g) of Section 95 of the Act, which relates to that person who has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or Rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, in invoked. This omnibus clause embraces within its ambit the financial and administrative irregularities committed by Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and others. 4. This omnibus clause embraces within its ambit the financial and administrative irregularities committed by Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and others. 4. The action for removal may be initiated on receiving the complaints and after observing the provisions made in the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. 5. The complaint can be entertained only when the procedure prescribed in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1997 is specified though the procedure laid down in Rule 3 to entertain the complaints is not necessary to be followed, if the complaint is made by a public servant. Any complaint which does not specify the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 has to be thrown out as not entertainable. 6. After the complaint if validity entertained a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4 is to be conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer with all expedition. 7. After the receipt of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer the District Magistrate may pass an appropriate order as contemplated by First proviso to clause (g) which was inserted by U.P. Act No. 9 of 1994, which provides that if a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities, such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan shall cease to exercise and perform financial and administrative power 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 the Gram Pradhan. 8. The provisions of the aforesaid proviso relating to stripping of the administrative and financial power of the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan can be invoked only after a show cause notice is served on the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, as the case may be and he is afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed as is contemplated in second proviso to clause (g). Any order passed by the District Magistrate without calling for the explanation and without giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed would be vitiated and would invite judicial intervention. 9. Any order passed by the District Magistrate without calling for the explanation and without giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed would be vitiated and would invite judicial intervention. 9. Once financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan are ceased, taking into consideration the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer and after consideration of the reply to show cause notice, if any, submitted by him they shall not be restored until the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is exonerated of the charge in the final enquiry. It is seen that after passing of the order stripping of the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of their financial and administrative powers of functions, the District Magistrates restore these powers even though the final enquiry has not been concluded. It is made clear that once aforesaid powers have been ceased, they cannot be restored unless the formal enquiry is concluded and the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is exonerated of the charges. The District Magistrate cannot resort to any mid-way course. 10. After the receipt of the preliminary enquiry report a final enquiry is to be ordered by the District Magistrate by appointing an enquiry officer, as contemplated in Rule 5. 11. The enquiry officer shall conduct the enquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6, which are to be followed rigorously and meticulously. 12. After conclusion of the enquiry and preparation of the report, the enquiry officer shall submit the report to the District Magistrate, as required in Rules 7 and 8. 13. After the receipt of the report of final enquiry, the District Magistrate shall not remove the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan on one or more of the grounds mentioned in clause (g) (i) to (v) unless he has given a show cause notice of the proposed action alongwith a report of enquiry to the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan and had afforded him an opportunity of showing cause. The reasonable period to show cause against the proposed action shall not be less than 20 days from the date of receipt, of, or service on the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. 14. If an opportunity of personal hearing is sought by the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, it shall not denied by the District Magistrate and he shall pass final orders one way or the other after affording a personal hearing to the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. 14. If an opportunity of personal hearing is sought by the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, it shall not denied by the District Magistrate and he shall pass final orders one way or the other after affording a personal hearing to the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. The District Magistrate shall bear in mind that any order passed under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act in contravention of the above guidelines which are based on salutary principles of natural justice flowing from the statutory provisions shall stand vitiated.” 12. Said judgment has been again dealt with by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Moti Lal v. District Magistrate, Lalitpur and another, 2003 (5) AWC 3849 wherein the word ‘or otherwise’ referred has also been considered. In the said judgment in paragraph-10 it has been categorically mentioned 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 observation made in paragraph-8 of the aforesaid judgment while construing the word “otherwise” in Rule 4. 13. Recently Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Chinta Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (3) ESC 1673 (All) while considering analogous provision of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam 1961 Sections 29 and 16 (1) which deals with cessation of Administrative and financial powers of Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat has taken the view that passing of order of cessation of Administrative and financial powers of Zila Panchayat without associating in preliminary inquiry would be gross violation of the provision of the Act as well as Rules beside the principles of natural justice and proviso to Section 29 reveals that it obligates the State Government to get a preliminary enquiry held, which enquiry shall be held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed; the prescription has been made by Rules 1997 and if in that enquiry Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities, such Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions. This means that not only a preliminary enquiry is to be held under the orders of the State Government but it has to be held by a person duly nominated for the purpose, in accordance with rules and if in that enquiry, it is prima facie found that the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has committed financial and other irregularities, he shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative charges in the final enquiry. This again means that liability has to be established and misconduct has to stand proved, may be prima facie only then formal enquiry would be conducted and his administrative and financial powers can be ceased and the State Government will have the jurisdiction to appoint a three members Committee for the purpose. Relevant paragraphs 32 and 47 are being extracted below : “32 Reading of the proviso to Section 29 reveals that it obligates the State Government to get a preliminary enquiry held, which enquiry shall be held by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed; the prescription has been made by Rules 1997 and if in that enquiry Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities, such Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions. This means that not only a preliminary enquiry is to be held under the orders of the State Government but it has to be held by a person duly nominated for the purpose, in accordance with rules and if in that enquiry, it is prima facie found that the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has committed financial and other irregularities, he shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative charges in the final enquiry. This again means that liability has to be established and misconduct has to stand proved, may be prima facie only then formal enquiry would be conducted and his administrative and financial powers can be ceased and the State Government will have the jurisdiction to appoint a three members Committee for the purpose. 47. This would be a misuse and abuse of powers and process of removal and holding of enquiry under the Act or the Rules. 47. This would be a misuse and abuse of powers and process of removal and holding of enquiry under the Act or the Rules. In case in the preliminary enquiry the District Magistrate feels satisfied on account of defence which is put by the charged Adhyaksha that no charge is made out, he can submit his report that even prima facie charge is not made out but in the absence of such an opportunity being given, it may be possible for the District Magistrate to take a different view.” 14. Now on the touch stone of the provisions and judgment quoted above, the facts of the present case are being adverted to. In the present case admitted position which has emerged from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is that on 19.2.2008 while making inspection infirmity has been noted in preparation of mid day meal. It has also been noted that directives were given to Pradhan to reform and remedy the situation but in spite of said directive being given no such remedial measures were taken by the Pradhan. On 26.3.2008 an inspection was carried out in respect of preparation of mid day meal and it was mentioned that necessary report is being sent on 27.3.2008. Report was submitted by the Tehsildar for taking action against the petitioner. On 27.3.2008 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kulpahar, District Mahoba has also made spot inspection and found that mid day meal was not being prepared and distributed and the persons dependent were also not provided mid day meal. Reference was also given that Tehsildar, Kulpahar has also visited the village Gund and had found that requisite essential commodities were not made available. It was also mentioned that Kshetriya Lekhpal also made complaint and for verification of the same he has gone to the village and made inquiries. On the report submitted on 27.3.2008 action has been taken. Nature of the proceeding which has been undertaken clearly indicates that by public servant complaint has been made in respect of conduct of Pradhan at each and every stage of the proceedings i.e. on 19.2.2008, 26.3.2008 and 27.3.2008 respectively. On the report submitted on 27.3.2008 action has been taken. Nature of the proceeding which has been undertaken clearly indicates that by public servant complaint has been made in respect of conduct of Pradhan at each and every stage of the proceedings i.e. on 19.2.2008, 26.3.2008 and 27.3.2008 respectively. Regular procedure to be followed as is provided in sub-rule (1) to (5) of Rule 3 was not at all to be adhered to for the simple reason that complaint in the present case against the Pradhan was made by public servant, as such in term of sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 it was not at all necessary to follow the procedure laid down in the foregoing provisions of said Rule if complaint against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is made by a public servant. After the said complaint was received another admitted position which has emerged in the present case is that District Magistrate who has been vested with the authority of the State Government under Section 95(1)(g) of the Act by virtue of said authority being delegated to District Magistrate by means of Notification No. 1648/33-1-1997-123/97, Lucknow dated 30th April, 1997 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 96-A of the Act, at no point of time has ever proceeded to pass an order for conducting preliminary inquiry with a view to find out if there is prima facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter and straight away on the receipt of complaint has been taken cognizance of the matter. Fact of the matter is that at no point of time District Magistrate has ever passed order appointing Inquiry Officer in term of Rule 2(c) of 1997 Rules to conduct the preliminary inquiry with a view to find out if there is prima facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter. The expression “prima facie found” read with expression “in an enquiry held by such person in such manner as may be prescribed” used by the Legislature in the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) of the Act unequivocally suggests that the requisite prima facie finding must be arrived at on consideration of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer under Rule 4(2) or the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer under the Enquiry Rules before forming opinion to cease financial and administrative power. In the absence of preliminary enquiry not being conducted, as prescribed by Rules, action taken cannot be subscribed. 15. Apart from this in the present case impugned order dated 7.4.2004 is running counter to the record as in the said order District Magistrate proceeds to mention that Sub-Divisional Magistrate had made inspection and during the course of inspection villagers have made complaint and inspection was got carried through Tehsildar Kulpahar and other it was found that petitioner has not got received essential commodities and has not got work done under National Village Employment Guarantee Scheme; Wells have not been cleaned as such petitioner be suspended. In the counter affidavit plea taken is totally contrary to the same as there is nothing on record to show and suggest that Tehsildar has ever been authorized by the District Magistrate to make inquiry into the complaint and submit report rather records are speaking otherwise. Annexure CA-1 and 2 of the counter affidavit indicates allegation in respect of mid day meal and no averments are there in support of National Village Employment Guarantee Scheme and in respect of cleaning of Wells and making arrangement of animals. All these circumstances are clearly indicative of mechanical exercise of authority without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Rules. 16. Consequently in the present case it is apparent that order ceasing financial power and administrative powers of the Pradhan has been passed in arbitrary and mechanical manner and without getting preliminary inquiry held in the matter as prescribed under 1997 Rules by the Inquiry Officer appointed by District Magistrate in term of Rule 2(c) of the 1997 Rules and the order which has been passed by the District Magistrate is in contradiction to the material furnished alongwith counter affidavit, as such order dated 7.4.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Mahoba is hereby quashed. However passing of this order will not prevent the respondents to take action strictly in consonance with the Rules and as subscribed and prescribed by the Rules. 17. With the above observations and direction present writ petition is allowed. 18. No order as to cost. ———