Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 952 (ALL)

Met Kishan v. State of U. P. and Others

2010-03-19

V.K.SHUKLA

body2010
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.: - Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, questioning the validity of order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun, proceeding to seize the administrative as well as financial powers of the Pradhan and constituting three-member committee to discharge the functions of Pradhan. Brief background of the case, as is disclosed in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was holding the post of Pradhan of village Usmanpur, Block Dahgawan, Tehsil Sahsawan, District Budaun. One Abdul Rehman made complaint on 26.12.2008 regarding irregularities committed by the petitioner before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Budaun. On the said complaint being made, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, on the same day, passed order asking the A.D.O. (P) to conduct enquiry into the matter and submit report. Thereafter, another complaint supported by affidavit was made on 02.01.2009 against the Pradhan. On the said complaint being made, from the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, letter was sent to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat as also to the petitioner, requesting them to furnish entire details of the activities being carried out and the date fixed was 07.02.2009. Neither the Secretary nor the petitioner submitted any document. Thereafter, the District Panchayat Raj Officer on 23.03.2009 made recommendation to the District Development Officer. The District Magistrate after receipt of the said report issued show cause notice to the petitioner, to which reply was submitted by the petitioner, and thereafter, order impugned has been passed on 27.08.2009 seizing the administrative as well as financial powers of the Pradhan. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Short counter affidavit has been filed through Sri Abdul Rehman, contending therein that prima facie there has been evidence against the petitioner, and at no point of time, in spite of asking, documents in question were ever produced and theory of loss of documents has been set up, as such this Court should refuse to interfere in the matter. Apart from this, relevant record, in original, on the basis of which impugned decision has been taken, has also been produced, and thereafter with the consent of the parties, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal. Apart from this, relevant record, in original, on the basis of which impugned decision has been taken, has also been produced, and thereafter with the consent of the parties, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal. Sri Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case action which has been taken for seizing administrative as well as financial powers of the petitioner is unsustainable on the face of it, as the petitioner has been divested from exercising administrative as well as financial powers other than in accordance with the procedure provided under the Ist 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) Enquiry Rules, 1997, as at no point of time, the District Magistrate had ever authorized the District Panchayat Raj Officer to make enquiry and in fact no preliminary enquiry had been undertaken, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. Learned Standing Counsel, as well as Sri Vijendra Singh, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that the District Magistrate has ample authority to take action as is envisaged under Enquiry Rules, 1997, and here the petitioner has set up false case of the documents being lost, and the report of the District Panchayat Raj Officer was there, which clearly enjoined the District Magistrate to take action, as such no fault can be found in the action taken. Once prima facie material was there and formal enquiry is yet to be conducted, this Court should refuse to interfere in the matter. In order to appreciate the respective arguments, the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 and Rule 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 (20 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 of a Sahayak Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in the 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 maybe 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 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. 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." 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) Rules 1997, which has been 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 imposed under the Act/Rules, abusing position and continuance is not desired in public interest can be deprived of his right to perform and discharge duties of Pradhan on permanent basis as well as on interim basis as per procedure prescribed. 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 primafacie found to have committed financial and other irregularities, until exonerated in the finalcharges. 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 primafacie found to have committed financial and other irregularities, until exonerated in the finalcharges. Said provision has been subject matter of interpretation in the case of Chunmun Vs The District Magistrate, Sonbhadra reported in 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 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 expression "prima-facie found" read with expression "in an enquiry held by such person and 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. 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" then on the basis of the report of preliminary enquiry conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer under Rule 4 of the report submitted 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 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. 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." Said judgment has been dealt with by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Moti Lal Vs. District Magistrate, Lalitpur and another reported in 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. In reference of expression "or otherwise" used in Rule 5 of 1997 Rules, which enables the District Magistrate to direct the Enquiry Officer to hold formal enquiry, on the basis of the report or information other than the one contained in Rule 4 (2) of 1997 Rules, has not at all been dealt with and issue raised therein is confined to expression used in Rule 4, and nothing beyond the same. On the parameters as set out, the facts of the present case are being adverted to. In the present case accepted position, which is appearing from the record is that initially complaint was made to the District Panchayat Raj Officer on 26.12.2008. Thereafter, another complaint was made to the District Magistrate in respect of illegalities committed by the Pradhan of the village. Said complaint was supported by affidavit. After the said complaint was made, from the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer on 02.01.2009 letter was sent to the petitioner as well as to Sri K.P. Singh, the Gram Vikas Adhikari, who also happens to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, and both were asked to produce entire documents. Said complaint was supported by affidavit. After the said complaint was made, from the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer on 02.01.2009 letter was sent to the petitioner as well as to Sri K.P. Singh, the Gram Vikas Adhikari, who also happens to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, and both were asked to produce entire documents. The petitioner came out with a case that entire documents had been lost on 07.01.2009. Thereafter, the District Panchayat Raj Officer submitted his report to the District Magistrate, and based on the said report, the District Magistrate on 23.03.2009 proceeded to issue notice to the petitioner, and the petitioner on 10.07.2009 submitted his reply. Thereafter, the order impugned has been passed. Admitted position in the present case is that on the application and the affidavit moved by the complainant, at no point of time, District Magistrate had ever asked in writing to the District Panchayat Raj Officer to make preliminary enquiry and submit report. The fact of the matter is that the District Panchayat Raj Officer on the complaint made to him, has straightaway proceeded to issue notice and on the documents being not furnished, submitted his report and thereafter based on the same action has been taken. It is true that in the present case report has been submitted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. It is also equally true that at no point of time, the District Magistrate had ever asked the District Panchayat Raj Officer to conduct preliminary enquiry into the matter and submit report. The question is as to when the District Magistrate had not passed any order in black and white asking the District Panchayat Raj Officer to conduct preliminary enquiry into the matter and submit report and the District Pacnyat Raj Officer on his own level submitted report, can, based on the said report, administrative as well as financial powers of the Pradhan, be seized or not. Rule 4 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 is enabling provision giving power to the State Government to order for holding preliminary enquiry with a view to find out if there is a prima facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter or not. The words "or otherwise" occurring in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 is of wide import. Rule 4 of the Enquiry Rules, 1997 is enabling provision giving power to the State Government to order for holding preliminary enquiry with a view to find out if there is a prima facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter or not. The words "or otherwise" occurring in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 is of wide import. Even if no compliant is available as envisaged under Rule 3, the State Government does not lack the power to direct for holding preliminary enquiry. Here, the District Pancyat Raj Officer, on the complaint made to him, made enquiry and submitted report, specifically pointing out that in spite of the documents being asked for, had not been supplied. The petitioner's specific case had been that the said documents had been lost, for which First Information Report had been lodged. Rule 5 of 1997 Rules empowers the District Magistrate to direct the Enquiry Officer to hold formal enquiry on the basis of the report or information other than the one contained in Rule 4 (2) of the said Rules. In this context once factual position is that the enquiry has been conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, who is admittedly enquiry officer within the meaning of rule 2 (c) of 1997 Rules, and has submitted its report, finding prima facie material against the petitioner. In such a situation can it be said that, as there was no formal order of the District Magistrate nominating the District Panchayat Raj Officer to function as Enquiry Officer, based on the said report formal enquiry cannot be held? Rule 5 of 1997 Rules contains provision empowering the State Government to take action for initiation of formal enquiry on the report submitted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Enquiry Rules, 1997 and even on the report received otherwise. The object of holding preliminary enquiry is to decide and assess as to whether it is necessary for the appropriate authority to take any action against whom complaint has been made. Preliminary enquiry is held for the purposes of collection of facts for the purposes of satisfaction of the Government so as to able to decide future course of action. The object of holding preliminary enquiry is to decide and assess as to whether it is necessary for the appropriate authority to take any action against whom complaint has been made. Preliminary enquiry is held for the purposes of collection of facts for the purposes of satisfaction of the Government so as to able to decide future course of action. The object of preliminary enquiry has been explained in the case of Vijay Kumar Nigam vs. State of M.P. 1996 (11) SCC 593 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Arunkumar Madhav Rao Sindhia and others, 2007 (1) SCC 283 . Rule 4 itself proceeds to mention, the object for which preliminary enuiry is to be conducted i.e. with a view to find out, if there is prima facie case for formal enquiry into the matter. Once the object of holding preliminary enquiry is to decide and assess as to whether it was necessary for the appropriate authority to take any action, for initiation of formal enquiry, and in case State Government or the competent authority is already possessed of material, warranting formal enquiry into the matter can in such a situation even then the preliminary enquiry is must and the words "or otherwise" used in Rule 5 of 1997 can be rendered as redundant/otiose and the State Government/Competent Authority be forced to undertake futile exercise for getting preliminary enquiry done in the matter. In the context of Rule 5 of 1997 Rules, learned Single Judge has already taken view that the expression ''or otherwise' used in Rule 5 however, does not, in his 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). It has also been mentioned that 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. It has also been mentioned that 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. There is no authoritative pronouncement on the subject which is of general public importance, that even when the State Government is posted with the material for initiating formal enquiry can even then it may proceed to ask for holding of preliminary enquiry into the matter, and then only exercise the power as is envisaged under rule 5 of 1997 Rules, whereas authority has been vested to take action on material by using expression "or otherwise" than the enquiry report submitted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of 1997 Rules. Under Section 110 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the State Government has been empowered to make Rules by Notification in official gazette for carrying out the purpose of the Act and sub-section (2) provides in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the aforesaid powers such rules may provide for various items provided in clause (I) to clause (XLVII) clause (VI) deals with suspension and removal of the office bearers and in exercise of the said authority, once Legislature consciously has framed Rules covering the field of suspension in addition to the preliminary enquiry contemplated in rule 4(2) of the Rules, then can in such a situation action of the Government under the provisions "or otherwise" can be ignored being in excess or transgression of jurisdiction. Legal position is well settled that it is the authority which is to be seen and not the label. Legal position is well settled that it is the authority which is to be seen and not the label. Consequently, as the matter is of general importance, touching the rights of continuance of the office of Pradhan, who derives his authority and status under the Constitution pursuant to 73rd Amendment, 1992, as such following question is being referred to larger Bench: "As to whether the observations made in the case of Chunmun vs. The District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, 1998 (89) RD 771, to the effect that the expression ''or otherwise' used in Rule 5 however, does not 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, are correct observations and same makes the second part of Rule 5 as redundant and otiose" The second question linked to the first question is, "As to whether the District Magistrate, even if no preliminary enquiry has been held, is otherwise equipped with material, prompting him to undertake formal enquiry, even then obliged to direct for holding of preliminary enquiry or he is free to proceed in the matter under Rule 5 which confers on him the authority to proceed on the report referred to in Rule 4 (2) "or otherwise". These two questions interconnected with each other require authoritative pronouncement from this Court. Apart from this, the Court is constrained to note, that on 22nd September, 2008, Hon'ble Tarun Agawal, J. in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (8) ADJ 684 made reference, qua the question, as to whether in the preliminary enquiry so undertaken, . Pradhan is entitled for any hearing, and as large number of matters were coming before this Court, it was clearly mentioned that the matter should be decided at the earliest by learned Bench, as there were conflicting divergent views qua akin provisions.. Till today, the said reference in question has been kept pending. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the said reference are as follows: "6. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the provisions are analogous. Till today, the said reference in question has been kept pending. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the said reference are as follows: "6. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the provisions are analogous. Consequently, in order to reconcile the question the position on the issue in question and to set the matter at rest, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is required to be adjudicated and decided by a Larger Bench. There are judgments for and against given by Single Judge of this Court as well as by a Division Bench. Since there is conflict in the decisions of the Court and in view of the provisions of Chapter V, Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court, this Court directs the Registry to place these papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench to decide the issue, namely, whether the authority is required to give a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the Pradhan while passing an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan under the proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchauat Raj Act. 7.This Court has noticed that a large number of petitions are coming up before this Court where financial powers of the Pradhan has been ceased without giving an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the matter should be decided at the earliest by a larger Bench. 8. In the present case, the Court finds that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the authority before ceasing the financial and administrative powers. The Pradhan derives his power and status under the Constitution pursuant to 73rd Amendment, 1992. The purpose of this enactment was to provide complete authority without interference from the State authorities. The Court further finds that the power exercised by the authority under the proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act is a quasi judicial power, which entails civil consequences, and therefore, it becomes all the more necessary that the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution is given effect to. The Court further finds that the power exercised by the authority under the proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act is a quasi judicial power, which entails civil consequences, and therefore, it becomes all the more necessary that the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution is given effect to. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that, a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing is the minimum requirement to be given to the Pradhan, by authority, before passing an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers under the proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act. Since that has not been done in the present case, consequently, I direct that till disposal of the writ petition qua the decision of the larger Bench, the impugned order ceasing financial and administrative powers of the petitioner, shall remain stayed. It shall, however, be open to the authorities to proceed and complete the formal enquiry contemplated under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act read with U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997." Tenure of the office of Pradhan is coming to an end and fresh elections are also in contemplation, in such a situation, it is much more necessary that all such issues are decided at the earliest, which further in its turn would give valuable guidelines to the Single Judge to deal with the matter effectively. Office is directed to place the papers of this writ petition as well as papers of Civil Misc. Writ petition No.45376 and 36881 of 2008, before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, under Chapter V, Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, within two weeks from the date of delivery of this order, for constitution of larger Bench, to answer the issues raised. Office of the Pradhan derives its existence and status under the Constitution pursuant to 73rd Amendment, 1992, and Pradhan is entitled to function for the term for which one has been elected. Office of the Pradhan derives its existence and status under the Constitution pursuant to 73rd Amendment, 1992, and Pradhan is entitled to function for the term for which one has been elected. The right to hold such post is statutory, and deprivation of the said right has to be in fair manner, be it temporary or permanent removal and as issues raised in both the writ petitions are of great general importance, touching the fairness of procedure tobe adhered to, looking into facts of the case, till the said issues are not answered, the order under challenge ceasing financial and administrative powers of Pradhan, is kept in abeyance. The Pradhan shall be free to exercise Administrative power, but as far as financial powers are concerned, qua the same, it is hereby directed that financial transaction as is envisaged under Chapter X of the U.P. Pancbhayat Raj Rules, 1947, shall be done by District Panchayat Raj Officer concerned, on the recommendations of Gram Panchayat and records will be maintained strictly as per the Rules. Qua other financial matters also concurrence be taken from concerned District Panchayat Raj Officer, and in matter of mid-day-meal from concerned District Basic Education Officer. Pendency of this reference will not prevent the authorities to undertake and conclude formal enquiry as is envisaged under Rules 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Enquiry Rules, 1997, and to take final decision in the matter. Registry shall proceed accordingly.