JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the action taken by the District Magistrate, Rampur, respondent No. 2 proceeding to pass order directing removal of the petitioner from the office of the Pradhan in exercise of authority of external control, vested under Section 95(i)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner claims that he is permanent resident of village Dadhiyal, Mustakham, Tehsil swar, District Rampur. Petitioner claims that his original name is Gulam Hussain alias Nanhey son of Shahabuddin alias Lalla and he became famous with his alias name Nanhey son of Lalla. Petitioner submits that on 23.4.2005 petitioner filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer for entering his name as Nanhey son of Lalla in place of Gulam Hussain son of Shahabuddin in the voter list as well as in revenue record of his agricultural land. Petitioner submits that said prayer made, was accepted. Petitioner has stated that he contested the election of Pradhan with the name of Nanhey son of Lalla and won the said election. Petitioner stated that on account of party politics and on account of having proximity with different political boss namely Sri Azam Khan, first information report had been lodged against him being Case Crime No. 588 of 2006, under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C. on account of the fact that petitioner has changed his name. In the said criminal case, charge sheet had been filed. Thereafter, petitioner had filed Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. being Criminal Misc. Application No. 12661 of 2008 wherein this Court has stayed the further proceeding therein. Petitioner submits that Nawab Kazim Ali Khan on account of political rivalry written a letter to District Magistrate, Rampur on 30.8.2008 mentioning therein that he is sending Mr. Mohd. Farook in relation to the fact that petitioner has contested election by changing his name and further against the petitioner various criminal cases has been mentioned and as such action be taken against the petitioner in accordance with law. Petitioner submits that thereafter Civil Misc. Mohd. Farook in relation to the fact that petitioner has contested election by changing his name and further against the petitioner various criminal cases has been mentioned and as such action be taken against the petitioner in accordance with law. Petitioner submits that thereafter Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37951 of 2008 had been filed before this Court and this Court therein as inquiry was not being concluded, proceeded to pass order directing the District Magistrate, Rampur to conclude the inquiry into the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to Pradhan of the village. As the said order was not being complied with within the time framed provided for, in this background Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 37337 of 2008 had been filed and this Court on 24.10.2008 afforded one more opportunity to District Magistrate to comply with the order passed by this Court within period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Thereafter, District Magistrate on 31.10.2008 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner mentioning therein that petitioner had contested the election with change name and further petitioner has been made an accused in criminal cases, which are still pending, as such as to why action under Section 95(1)(g)(ii) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1947 be not undertaken. Petitioner after receiving the said show-cause notice, submitted his reply on 10.11.2008. After the said reply was submitted, District Panchayat Raj Officer on 28.11.2008 appraised the petitioner to submit reply alongwith necessary details, as requisite particulars were lacking and missing. Petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter, District Panchayt Raj Officer made recommendation on 30.12.2008 on 5.12.2008 and said recommendation being made, District Magistrate on 5.1.2009 proceeded to pass order of removal. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government, short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant in question Mohd. Farook Azad. 4. Supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have also been filed. 5. After pleadings mentioned above, have been exchanged, thereafter, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing/disposal with the consent of the parties. 6. Sri. Farook Azad. 4. Supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have also been filed. 5. After pleadings mentioned above, have been exchanged, thereafter, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing/disposal with the consent of the parties. 6. Sri. M.A. Qadeer, Senior Advocate, appearing with Sri Iqbal Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case entire proceedings undertaken against the petitioner is unjustifiable, arbitrary and unreasonable and prescribed procedure as is provided for under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and the 1997 Rules has not at all been complied with and as such order passed, is liable to be quashed. 7. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri B.K. Pandey, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant on the other hand contended that in the present case on admitted position, deliberately and wilfully petitioner has tried to manipulate things to his advantage and this is undisputed position that he has been charged with offence involving moral turpitude, then in this background once this is accepted position that charged offence involves moral turpitude, and reasonable opportunity has been afforded to him, in such a situation, writ petition as it has been framed and drawn deserves to be dismissed. 8. In order to appreciate respective argument, Section 95(1)(g) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is being extracted below. “U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 “95. 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) absent 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. (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 the Act or rules made hereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or (iii-a) has taken the benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section 11-A or sub-section (5) 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 the Scheduled Castes, 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 and 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 Gram Panchayhat appointed by the State Government. (gg) (***) (h) (***) Provided that (i) no action shall be taken under clause (f), clause (g) (***) except after giving to the body or person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed. Rules, 1997 is also being extracted below. : “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, and by an order ask an Enquiry Officer, other than the Enquiry Officer nominated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, to hold enquiry. 6. Procedure of the enquiry.—(1) The substance of imputations, and a copy of the complaint referred to in Rule 3, if any, shall be forwarded to the Inquiry officer by the State Government. 6. Procedure of the enquiry.—(1) The substance of imputations, and a copy of the complaint referred to in Rule 3, if any, shall be forwarded to the Inquiry officer by the State Government. (2) The Inquiry officer shall draw up— (a) the substance of imputations into definite and distinct articles of charge; and (b) a statement of imputations in support of each article of charge, which shall contain a statement of all relevant facts and a list of documents by which, and list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. (3) The Inquiry Officer shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the person against whom he is to hold the enquiry, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of imputations and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require that person by a notice in writing, to submit within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person, and to appear in person before him on such day and at such time as may be specified. (4) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the inquiry officer shall inquire into such of that articles of charges as are not admitted and where all articles of charges have been admitted in the written statement of defence, the Inquiry officer shall record his findings on each charge after taking such evidence as he may think fit. (5) If the person who has not admitted any of the articles of charges in his written statement of defence, appears before the Inquiry Officer, he shall ask him where he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charges, the Inquiry officer shall record he plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of that person, and return a finding of guilt in respect of those charges. (6) If the person fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, the Inquiry officer shall take the evidence, and if there is a complaint, require him to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charges and shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding fifteen days, after recording an order that the said person may, for the purpose of preparing his defence,— (a) inspect within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the Inquiry Officer may allow, the documents specified in the list referred to in sub-rule (2); (b) submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf; (c) give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the Inquiry Officer may allow, for discovery or production of any documents that are relevant to the inquiry an are in the possession of the State Government, but not mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (2). (7) The person against whom enquiry is being held may take the assistance of any other person to present the case on his behalf, and the inquiry office may appoint any person as a presiding Officer to assist him in conducting the inquiry: Provided that a legal practitioner shall not be engaged or appointed under this sub-rule. (8) If the person applies orally or in writing for the supply of copies of the statement of witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule 92), the Inquiry officer shall furnish him with such copies as early as possible, and in any case, not later than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses by whom any of the articles of charge is proposed to be proved. (9) The Inquiry officer shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of documents, forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept, with a requisition for the production of the documents by such date as may be specified in such requisition: Provided that the Inquiry officer may; for the reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to requisition such of the documents as are, in his opinion, not relevant to the case. (10) On receipt of the requisition referred to in sub-rule (9, every authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents shall produce the same before the Inquiry Officer: Provided that if the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that the production of all or any such documents would be against the public interest to security of the State, it shall inform the Inquiry officer accordingly and such Inquiry Officer shall, on being so informed, communicate the information to the person against whom the inquiry is being held and withdraw the requisition made by him for the production or discovery of documents. (11) On the date fixed for enquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced and the witnesses shall be examined, by the Inquiry officer by or on behalf of the complainant, if there is one and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the person against whom the inquiry is being held. The witnesses may be examined by the Inquiry officer or the complainant, as the case may be, on any point on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the Inquiry officer. (12) The Inquiry officer may allow production of evidence not included in the list given to the person against whom the inquiry is being held , or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness and in such case the said person shall be entitled to have if her demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the Inquiry Officer for three clear days before the production of such evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. The Inquiry Officer shall give the said person an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record, the Inquiry officer may also allow the said person to produce new evidence, if he is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. Note.—Now evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Note.—Now evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called from only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally. (13) When the evidence for proving the articles of charge against the person against whom inquiry is being held is closed, the said person shall be required to state his defence orally or in writing as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the said person shall be required to sign the record. In either case, a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the complainant, if any. (14) The evidence on behalf of the person against whom the inquiry is being held shall then be produced. The said person may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the said person shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re-examination and examination by the Inquiry officer according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for proving the articles of charge. (15) The Inquiry officer may, after the person against whom inquiry is being held closes his case, and shall, if the said person has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. (16) The inquiry officer after completion of the production of evidence, hear the complainant, if any and the person against whom enquiry is being held, or permit them, or him, as the case may be, to file written briefs of their respective cases. (17) If the person to whom a copy of the articles of charge has been delivered does not submit the written statement of defence on or before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person before the Inquiry officer o otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this rule, the Inquiry officer may hold the enquiry ex parte. (18) Whenever Inquiry officer after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an enquiry, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another Inquiry Officer, the inquiry Officer so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor or partly or recorded by himself. Provided that if the succeeding inquiry officer is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice he may recall, examine, cross-examine and re-examine any such witness as herein before provided. 7. Report of the inquiry officer.—After the conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer shall prepare a report which shall contain- (a) the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations; (b) the defense of the person against whom the enquiry has been held; (c) the assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; (d) the findings on each article of charge and reasons therefor. Explanation.—If in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer the proceedings of the enquiry establish any article of charge different from the original articles of charge, he may record his findings on such article of charge. Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the person against whom enquiry has been held has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge. 8. The Inquiry Officer shall conclude the enquiry within six months from the date of receipt of complaint and forward to State Government the records of the enquiry, which shall include- (a) the report prepared by him under rule 7; (b) the written statement of defence, if any, or the person against whom enquiry has been held; (c) the oral and documentary evidence produced during the course of the enquiry; (d) written briefs, if any, filed during the course of the enquiry; and (e) the order, if any, made by the State Government and the Inquiry officer in regard to the enquiry.” 9. Under Chapter VII of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, State Government has been vested with the authority to remove a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or Members of Gram Panchayat on account of the activities carried out by Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or Members of Gram Panchayat mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (g) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 95 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. It has also been provided therein to seize financial as well as administrative powers and functions of the aforementioned persons, viz. Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or Members of Gram Panchayat when in enquiry held against such persons by such person in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is found to have committed financial and other irregularities and then he has to face formal enquiry. In exercise of powers vested under Section 110 read with clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, Rules have been framed dealing with removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members. Rule 3 deals with procedure relating to complaints. Rule 4 clearly provides that the State Government on the receipt of complaint or report referred to in Rule 3 or otherwise may 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. Enquiry Officer is thereafter obliged to conduct preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit report to the State Government. Rule 5 clearly provides that 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. Rule 6 gives procedure, which is to be followed in the enquiry. Rule 6 gives procedure, which is to be followed in the enquiry. The substance of imputations, and a copy of the complaint referred to in Rule 3, if any, has to be forwarded to the Inquiry Officer by the State Government, and the Inquiry Officer thereafter shall draw up the substance of imputations into definite and distinct articles of charge; and further statement of imputations in support of each article of charge, which shall contain a statement of all relevant facts and a list of documents by which, and list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. Enquiry Officer is obliged to deliver the person against whom he is to hold the enquiry, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of imputations and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require that person by a notice in writing, to submit within such time as may be specified, written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person, and to appear in person before him on such day and at such time as may be specified. After receipt of the written statement of defence, the Inquiry Officer has to enquire into such of that articles of charges as are not admitted and where all articles of charges have been admitted in the written statement of defence, the Inquiry officer shall record his findings on each charge after taking such evidence as he may think fit. If the person who has not admitted any of the articles of charges in his written statement of defence, appears before the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer is obliged to ask him where he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charges, the Inquiry Officer shall take evidence, and if there is a complaint, require him to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charges. The provision of assistance has also been provided. Copies of the statement of witnesses are also liable to be supplied. Inquiry Officer is duty bound to fix the date, time and place of enquiry and is further duty bound to provide opportunity to cross examination from the witnesses produced. Evidence is also permitted. The provision of assistance has also been provided. Copies of the statement of witnesses are also liable to be supplied. Inquiry Officer is duty bound to fix the date, time and place of enquiry and is further duty bound to provide opportunity to cross examination from the witnesses produced. Evidence is also permitted. After evidence is closed, then defence is permitted to be made orally or in writing, if the evidence is given orally, it has to be recorded. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the person against whom the inquiry is being held shall then be produced. The Inquiry officer after completion of the production of evidence, hear the complainant, if any and the person against whom enquiry is being held, or permit them, or him, as the case may be, to file written briefs of their respective cases. After the enquiry is concluded, the Inquiry Officer shall prepare a report containing the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations; the defence of the person against whom the enquiry has been held; the assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; the findings on each article of charge and reasons therefor. Inquiry officer has to submit report as prepared under rule 7, which shall include written statement of defence, if any, or the person against whom enquiry has been held; oral and documentary evidence produced during the course of the enquiry; written briefs, if any, filed during the course of the enquiry; and the order, if any, made by the State Government and the Inquiry officer in regard to the enquiry. 10. This Court in the case of Smt. Sandhya Gupta v. District Magistrate, Auriya, 1999 RD 246, has given guidelines to District Magistrates so that in future, they are cautious enough to deal with affairs of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members in accordance with law, leaving no scope for unnecessary litigation as follows: “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. 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 Up-Pradhan 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. 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 it 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 sowing 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. 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.” 11. Scheme of things provided for is clear and unambiguous, that enquiry under the first proviso of Section 95(1) (g), as per the procedure prescribed under 1997 is to be undertaken only when Pradhan has committed financial and other irregularities. Scheme of things provided for is clear and unambiguous, that enquiry under the first proviso of Section 95(1) (g), as per the procedure prescribed under 1997 is to be undertaken only when Pradhan has committed financial and other irregularities. This Court, in the case of Sandhya Gupta (Supra) mentioned that Pradhan can be removed from his office on number of grounds; generally in most of the cases, the grounds 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 is not desirable, is invoked. This omnibus clause embraces within its fold administrative and financial irregularities. In class of cases where Pradhan is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude, enquiry contemplated under the first proviso of Section 95(1) (g) read with 1997 Rules, is not at all attracted as enquiry is not at all going to be made qua financial irregularities or other irregularities, and the only relevant factor to see would be that Pradhan is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude or not. The expression accused of an offence means person against whom formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled, which in the normall course may result in his prosecution. “Charge for an offence”, signifies an accusation made in legal manner, and means something more than suspected or accused of crime. Once criminal forum has been set in motion, and therein Pradhan is alleged to be accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude, then enquiry is limited to the extent of finding out, as to whether the Pradhan accused of or charged for the offence, the said accusation or charge has the element of involvement of moral turpitude or not ?. Merely being an accused of or charged for an offence, will not confer authority on the State Government to take action for removal, until and unless the said offence, accused of or charged, has the tapping of involvement of moral turpitude also. Merely being an accused of or charged for an offence, will not confer authority on the State Government to take action for removal, until and unless the said offence, accused of or charged, has the tapping of involvement of moral turpitude also. The first proviso of Section 95(1)(g) read with 1997 Rules, has no application; whatsoever, in the facts of present case, as enquiry was limited to the extent of finding out, as to whether Pradhan was accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude or not, and for this purpose as per the second proviso, he was only entitled for reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed, and nothing beyond the same. 12. On the parameter as set out, once it is accepted position that provision, as contained under the first proviso to Section 95(1)(g) read with 1997 Rules are not at all attracted, and reasonable opportunity has to be afforded qua the action propose, as to whether reasonable opportunity has been afforded or not. In the present case, petitioner has been given opportunity to put forth his version, qua his complicity in criminal cases, which involved moral turpitude. Show-cause notice was issued to petitioner by District Magistrate concerned on 31.10.2008. to the said show-cause notice reply was submitted by petitioner on 10.11.2008, and then as on various facets satisfactory reply had not been submitted, petitioner was asked to do the needful, and petitioner thereafter furnished material available at his end and then action has been taken. In the present case, thus reasonable opportunity has been provided to petitioner, before proceeding to take action in the matter. Two first information report had been lodged against the petitioner being Case Crime No. 2279 of 2004 and Case Crime No. 2280 of 2004 under Section 409 I.P.C. In both the cases petitioner has been charge sheeted and was confined to jail. Nature of cases, qua which petitioner was charged involved moral turpitude and to the said show-cause notice, which has been issued to the petitioner on 31.10.2008, petitioner had accepted this position that this two sets of criminal cases are of the year 2004 and were pending in the Court and in respect of Case Crime No. 588 of 2008 under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C., petitioner had given reply that further proceeding had been stayed. Merely because further proceeding had been stayed against the petitioner, same would not have the effect of wiping out the effect of the said proceedings, and its only effect would be that from the date of passing of interim order, further proceeding will not take place, till matter is not decided by this Court. Once petitioner was accused and charged for an offence involving moral turpitude, the State Government had full authority to take action. Petitioner had accepted this fact that he got his name changed when the election process was to take place and before it has been notified. Petitioner claims that said act of his was bona fide act. Facts and circumstance clearly disclose that it was deliberate act on the part of the petitioner in getting his name changed in the electoral roll, inasmuch as he was conscious of this fact that two cases which are pending against him with same name involved moral turpitude and in such a situation nomination would not be entertained. Petitioner in well calculated manner, got his name changed and contested the election. Once said fact came to the knowledge and notice of the authority concerned, then after recording finding that petitioner is involved in cases involving moral turpitude, then in such a situation District Magistrate formed opinion. Petitioner has got no explanation to furnish qua two criminal cases pending against under Section 409 I.P.C. him and even before this Court no attempt or endeavour has been made to demonstrate that said two criminal case wherein he has been charged are cases not involving moral turpitude. 13. Once this is factual scenario that petitioner has been charged for the offence involving moral turpitude and qua the same no reasonable explanation has been furnished, consequently, in the fact of the present case, this Court refuses to interfere with the order impugned. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 14. No order as to cost. ————