JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—In the present case petitioner is Pradhan of village Makrandapur, Pritamrai Post and Block Bhojipura District Bareilly. It appears that complaint has been made in respect of functioning of Pradhan as envisaged under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Rules, 1997 and it is also reflected from the record which has been perused that three members committee has been constituted for conducting preliminary inquiry into the matter and report was submitted on 17.1.2008. After said report has been submitted show cause notice has been issued on 14.2.2008 to the petitioner to which petitioner submitted his reply on 14.2.2008. Thereafter District Magistrate, Bareilly has proceeded to exercise and invoke power vested under the First proviso of Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 on 11.7.2008 ceasing financial and administrative function of petitioner and constituting three members Committee to look after the administrative and financial matter of the Gram Panchayat. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri G.B. Singh Patel, contended with vehemence that in the present case show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which petitioner has submitted his reply, said reply has been noted in the impugned order but said reply has not at all been considered and dealt with and same has been ignored by mentioning that reply submitted by the petitioner is unsatisfactory, in this background learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very purpose of submitting the reply stands frustrated and as the contents of the said reply has not at all been dealt with, as such order impugned passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that preliminary inquiry has been contended and thereafter show cause notice has been issued and order impugned passed in consonance with the provision as contained under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. At this juncture view point of this Court in respect of exercising authority of cessation of financial and administrative authority is being looked into. 5. This Court in the case of Smt. Sandhya Gupta v. District Magistrate, Auriya, 1999 (90) RD 246, has enunciated following guidelines. 4. At this juncture view point of this Court in respect of exercising authority of cessation of financial and administrative authority is being looked into. 5. This Court in the case of Smt. Sandhya Gupta v. District Magistrate, Auriya, 1999 (90) RD 246, has enunciated following guidelines. “(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) 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 validly entertained a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4 is to be conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer with all expedition. 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 validly 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 Panchayat. (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) 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. 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. 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.” 6. 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.” 6. Recently Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Chinta Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (3) ESC 1973 (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. 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. 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.” 7. Now on the touchstone of the judgment quoted above, the facts of the present case are being adverted to. In the present case show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner to which petitioner has submitted his reply on 14.2.2008. District Magistrate in impugned order has also taken note of the reply submitted by the petitioner and District Magistrate has proceeded to mention that show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, and pursuant to which petitioner has submitted his reply. District Magistrate in impugned order has also taken note of the reply submitted by the petitioner and District Magistrate has proceeded to mention that show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, and pursuant to which petitioner has submitted his reply. District Magistrate has further proceeded to mention that reply which has been submitted by the petitioner is unsatisfactory without assigning any reason as to why said reply is not satisfactory. Once reply has been submitted then reason ought to have been given as to why said reply is unsatisfactory by the District Magistrate. Once no reason has been indicated as to why reply submitted by the petitioner is unsatisfactory then the very purpose of issuance of show cause notice stands frustrated and breached. On this score that admittedly reply has been submitted and District Magistrate while passing order has proceeded to mention that reply submitted by the petitioner is unsatisfactory and as no reason whatsoever has been disclosed as to why reply submitted by petitioner is unsatisfactory, the order passed cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, order dated 11.7.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Bareilly is hereby quashed. District Magistrate, Bareilly is directed to take fresh decision in the matter after taking into consideration the reply so submitted by the petitioner within next six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. With the above direction present writ petition is allowed. ————