Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.5.2010 passed by District Magistrate, Kushinagar respondent no.2, removing petitioner from the office of Gram Pradhan in purported exercise of power under section 95(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and also directing for recovery of a sum of Rs. 42430/-. 2. Initially, when the writ petition was entertained on 23rd July 2010, this Court found that the issues raised in this writ petition regarding procedure to be followed under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan & Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “Enquiry Rules, 1997”) have been referred consideration by larger Bench in writ petition no. 60951 of 2009 and other connected matters. Hence, this writ petition was connected with those matters referred to larger Bench. The larger Bench has now answered the reference vide judgment dated 26.10.2010 placed in Writ Petition No. 36881 of 2008, Vivekanand Yadav v. State of UP and another, reported in 2010 ADJ (10) page 1: 2011 (29) LCD 221 (FB). The larger Bench has answered the issues in para 107 of the judgment as under: “107. Our conclusions are as follows: (a) The DM may ask the preliminary enquiry to be conducted by any officer defined under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules on a complaint or a report under rule 3 or any other material or information. He has suo motu powers as well to order a preliminary enquiry; (b) A pradhan has no right to object that complaint or report is not in accordance with rule 3 of the Enquiry Rules; (c) A pradhan is neither entitled to be associated in the preliminary enquiry nor is entitled to the copy of the preliminary report. However, before an order ceasing the financial and administrative power is passed, his explanation or point of view or the version to the charges should be obtained and considered; (d) In the first and the third WPs, the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of preliminary report after obtaining and considering the explanation of the pradhan. However, before an order ceasing the financial and administrative power is passed, his explanation or point of view or the version to the charges should be obtained and considered; (d) In the first and the third WPs, the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of preliminary report after obtaining and considering the explanation of the pradhan. The impugned orders in these WPs cannot be faulted on this ground; (e) In our opinion the word ‘otherwise’ in rule 5 includes and the DM can rely upon the following reports only to cease financial and administrative power and direct the final enquiry: A report of a person who is also defined as an enquiry officer under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules—irrespective of whether he was directed by the DM to conduct the preliminary inquiry or not; A preliminary enquiry report conducted by the DM himself. (f) In the third writ petition, the report was submitted by the DPRO, who is defined as an enquiry officer under rule 2(c) of the Enquiry Rules. The impugned order cannot be faulted on the ground that the DPRO was not asked by the DM to conduct the preliminary enquiry; However, it is open to the petitioners in the first and third WPs to raise other points before the appropriate bench.” 3. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner was elected Gram Pradhan in the elections held in 2005. During the pendency of this writ petition, new elections have been held in 2010, hence to the extent the relief was sought in the writ petition for continuance in the office of Gram Pradhan, it has rendered infructuous and he is pressing the writ petition only to the extent the matter relates to recovery of certain amount from the petitioner and the order impugned in the writ petition is being assailed only to this extent. 4. Though time was granted to respondents to file counter affidavit as long back as on 23.07.2010 but they have chosen not to file any reply so far. Learned Standing Counsel, however, stated that since only legal arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner he would reply the same by submitting his oral submissions and writ petition may be decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. With the consent of parties, I proceed accordingly. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, however, stated that since only legal arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner he would reply the same by submitting his oral submissions and writ petition may be decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. With the consent of parties, I proceed accordingly. 5. The facts giving rise to the present dispute, in brief, are as under. 6. A complaint was made against petitioner in 2007 with a request to hold inquiry. It alleges some financial irregularities committed by her. A writ petition as Public Interest Litigation No. 43849 of 2008 (Ram Narain Prasad Mushar and another v. Union of India, through Secretary Gramin Vikas Mantralaya and others) was also filed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.09.2008 and the relevant extract of the order reads as under: “Insofar as the allegations against the Pradhan are concerned, the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules 1997 has been framed, which empowers the District Magistrate to direct for an enquiry when a complaint is received against the Pradhan or any other member, by District Level Committee, which is empowered under the said Rules as well as U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 to seize the financial and executive power of the Pradhan, if anything is found to have been misappropriated by him. The District Magistrate can also remove the Pradhan, if charges are found proved. In this writ petition, financial issues are raised that the Pradhan has misutilized/misappropriated the public fund himself. We are of the view that to decide such grievances, evidence will have to be led by the parties and thus the proper course would be that the District magistrate considers the complaint submitted by the petitioner against the Pradhan. The District magistrate shall proceed in accordance with 1997 Rules and take an appropriate action in accordance with law. We are further of the view that the allegations in the writ petition are also against other District Authorities, who are also entrusted and have to oversee the public welfare schemes and are not attending to their duties. The District Magistrate is also to look into such matters and take a proper decision. We are further of the view that the allegations in the writ petition are also against other District Authorities, who are also entrusted and have to oversee the public welfare schemes and are not attending to their duties. The District Magistrate is also to look into such matters and take a proper decision. The complaint, which was submitted to the District Magistrate by the petitioner, has been annexed as Annexure-4 to this writ petition which is also supported by an affidavit. We further permit the petitioner to file fresh comprehensive complaint before the District Magistrate giving details of the allegations against the respondent no. 6 within six weeks from today along with the certified copy of this order. The District Magistrate, after receiving the complaint may take an appropriate action as per 1997 Rules. The District Magistrate may also obtain reports from the other District Authorities, namely, the respondents no. 4 and 5 as well as Sub Divisional Officer with regard to implementation of Public Welfare Schemes. The District Magistrate, who is over all in-charge of the district, is to see that all the said schemes are faithfully implemented in the district and thus he may take an appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously. With the aforesaid observations / directions, this writ petition is disposed of.” 7. Pursuant to aforesaid order a fresh comprehensive complaint was also filed on 10.10.2008 but without appending any affidavit. Since the District Magistrate did not take any action, contempt petition no. 1013 of 2009 (Ram Narain Prasad Musahar vs. Sudhir Kumar Srivastava) was filed wherein notice was issued. The District Magistrate then constituted a three members committee to enquire into the allegations made against petitioner. The committee made a preliminary inquiry and submitted report dated 16.5.2009 holding petitioner prima facie guilty of several irregularities and misappropriation of public funds. The District Magistrate consequently issued notice dated 18.05.2009 in purported exercise of powers under section 95(1)(g) withdrawing financial and administrative powers as also restrained the petitioner from discharging other duties. He also constituted a three member committee for such functions. The notice also contained four charges whereupon the petitioner was required to submit reply. The reply was submitted by petitioner on 22.05.2009. (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). 8. He also constituted a three member committee for such functions. The notice also contained four charges whereupon the petitioner was required to submit reply. The reply was submitted by petitioner on 22.05.2009. (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). 8. Thereafter petitioner submitted a letter dated 4th June 2009 requesting District Panchayat Raj Officer to return various documents of Gram Sabha since reply to show cause notice would not be given without perusing the documents and the same were also required for smooth functioning of Gram Sabha. The District Panchayat Raj Officer vide order dated 25.06.2009 declined to return documents on the ground that proceeding against petitioner as also a Gram Vikas Adhikari/Secretary Gram Panchayat is proposed. The District Magistrate vide order dated 04.07.2009 decided to hold regular inquiry finding petitioner, prima facie guilty, nominating District Finance and Statistics Officer, Kuishi Nagar, Executive Engineer, PWD, Construction Division, Kushi Nagar as the “Inquiry Committee”. He also constituted three elected members’ committee and authorized it to look after the functions of Gram Sabha. 9. The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.07.2009 in writ petition no. 36795 of 2009 which was disposed of on 23.07.2009 directing to complete inquiry against petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. The petitioner was also simultaneously required to cooperate in the inquiry and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. The petitioner filed Special Appeal but later on withdrew it. 10. The Inquiry Committee constituted by the District Magistrate, submitted report on 05.01.2010. With respect to charge no.1, certain construction works were found below standard but then it was observed that due to non-availability of record, detailed inquiry could not be conducted. Regarding charge no.2, the committee said that misuse of mid day meals foodgrains has been committed. Similarly, with respect to charge no.3, observation was that no description of any ineligible for widow, old age and handicapped pension was brought to the notice of the committee. With respect to charge no.4 the committee could not find any substantial act or omission constituting dereliction of duty on the part of petitioner. 11. The District Magistrate thereafter passed order dated 25.01.2010 directing to recover a sum of Rs. 1,25,626/- and Rs. 20,221/- from petitioner. She deposited Rs. 84,566/- along with letter dated 29.01.2010 vide Treasury Challan no. 70 dated 29.01.2010, draft no. 772436 dated 29.01.2010 for Rs. 40,000/- and draft no. 772437 dated 29.01.2010 for Rs. 21,281.50. 12. 11. The District Magistrate thereafter passed order dated 25.01.2010 directing to recover a sum of Rs. 1,25,626/- and Rs. 20,221/- from petitioner. She deposited Rs. 84,566/- along with letter dated 29.01.2010 vide Treasury Challan no. 70 dated 29.01.2010, draft no. 772436 dated 29.01.2010 for Rs. 40,000/- and draft no. 772437 dated 29.01.2010 for Rs. 21,281.50. 12. The District Magistrate, thereafter, passed order dated 03.02.2010 observing that since petitioner had deposited entire amount, taking a lenient view in the matter, she is administered a warning to remain careful in future, and is restored her statutory duties and functions accordingly. The order dated 04.07.2009 was revoked by order dated 03.02.2010. 13. A writ petition no. 11950 of 2010 was filed by Ram Narain Prasad Mushar and another which was dismissed as not maintainable since the petitioners were complainants and the writ petition at their instance was not maintainable. It appears that thereafter another writ petition no. 14944 of 2010 was filed as Public Interest Litigation by the aforesaid two persons namely, Ram Narain and another wherein an interim order was passed on 27.04.2010 staying operation of the order dated 03.02.2010. The District Magistrate consequently issued another order dated 28.04.2010 revoking order dated 03.02.2010 and restoring order dated 04.07.2009. The aforesaid writ petition came to be decided on 04.05.2010. Relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: “Upon recording all this, the writ petition in the form of public interest litigation is disposed of without imposing any cost. If such type of incidents have taken place, the petitioner will not be debarred to proceed on the basis of fresh cause of action, if any. It is submitted by Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that there should not be any financial or administrative power to this Pradhan, to which the learned chief Standing Counsel has contended that both the powers have been withdrawn from the concerned Pradhan and that will continue till the final enquiry takes place and report is placed before the District Magistrate. So far as the enquiry, if any, against the Pradhan is concerned, passing of this order will not dis-entitle the Pradhan to get and opportunity to inspect the documents or upon being called to supply the same and take her defence before the appropriate individual or authority.” 14. So far as the enquiry, if any, against the Pradhan is concerned, passing of this order will not dis-entitle the Pradhan to get and opportunity to inspect the documents or upon being called to supply the same and take her defence before the appropriate individual or authority.” 14. As noticed in this Court’s order dated 04.5.2010, the District Magistrate had constituted another inquiry committed on 29.04.2010 consisting of the following: 1.Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD, Kushinagar. 2. District Finance and Statistics Officer, Kushinagar. 3. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kushinagar. 4. Block Development Officer, Khadda. 5. Assistant Engineer, Construction Division, PWD, Kushinagar. 6. Sri K.M. Chauhan, Junior Engineer, Construction Division, PWD, Kushinagar 7. Sri Sunil, Junior Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Kushinagar. 15. It is said that the newly constituted committee submitted report on 01.05.2010 whereupon a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the same date i.e., 01.05.2010. The petitioner was required to show cause on following aspects: ^^1- izLrqr tkap vk[;k ds vuqlkj ifjlEefRr iaftdk ds vuqlkj fofHkUu ifj;kstuk ds fuekZ.k dh ykxr ,oa lR;kiu ds vk/kkj ij vuqekfur ykxr esa vUrj dqy eq0&412700-81 :i;s tkap esa ik;k x;k gS] ftlesa eujsxk ds xkbZM ykbUl ds vuqlkj xzke iz/kku ij eq0&137566-00 :i;s dk vkjksi fl) gksrk gS] ftlesa xzke iz/kku }kjk iwoZ esa tkjh olwyh vkns’k fnuka 25-01-2010 ls eq0&122563-00 :i;s tek fd;k x;k gS] bl izdkj eq0&15003-00 :i;s dk vf/kd Hkqxrku dk vkjksi xzke iz/kku ij ik;k tk jgk gSA 2- [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh [kM~Mk Hkh eujsxk ds vUrxZr tkc dkMZ /kkjdksa ds laca/ka esa tkc dkMZ esa vafdr dk;Z fnol ,oa okLrfod dk;Z fnol ds chp vUrj ¼QthZ dk;Z fnol½ fn[kkdj eq0&82881-00 :i;s dk tkap esa nq:i;ksx ik;k x;k gSA** “1. As per the enquiry report submitted, on the basis of the cost and verification in respect of the constructions under several projects as per the assets register, the difference to the tune of Rs. 412700.81/- has been found in the estimated cost in which as per the guidelines in respect of MNREGA, the charge of misappropriating Rs. 137566.00/- is proved against the Gram Pradhan. Out of the said amount, Rs. 122563.00/ has been deposited by Gram Pradhan in pursuance of the recovery order dated 25.01.2010 issued earlier. In this way the charge of extra payment to the tune of Rs. 15003.00/- is being found to be proved against Gram Pradhan. 2. 137566.00/- is proved against the Gram Pradhan. Out of the said amount, Rs. 122563.00/ has been deposited by Gram Pradhan in pursuance of the recovery order dated 25.01.2010 issued earlier. In this way the charge of extra payment to the tune of Rs. 15003.00/- is being found to be proved against Gram Pradhan. 2. In the enquiry, Block Development Officer, Khadda has also been found to have misappropriated Rs. 82881.00/- by wrongly showing the number of working days, that is, the difference between working days mentioned in Job Cards and the actual number of working days in respect of Job Card holders under MNREGA.” (English translation by Court) 16. The petitioner submitted reply on 07.05.2010 stating that unless relevant documents are made available for perusal of petitioner, she will not be in a position to submit effective reply. The District Magistrate, Kushinagar thereafter passed impugned order holding reply unsatisfactory and thereby requiring petitioner to deposit Rs.1,25,626/- and Rs. 20,221/- and also removing her from the office of Gram Pradhan. 17. Sri K.N. Tripathi learned Senior Advocate contended that after constituting another inquiry committee by order dated 29th April 2010 it was incumbent upon the committee to hold inquiry in accordance with procedure prescribed in 1997 Rules but the said committee made spot inspection and that too without any information to the petitioner and within two days i.e. on 1.5.2010 submitted its report. The committee also ignored the direction of this Court contained in the judgment dated 04.05.2010 that the said inquiry shall not disentitle the petitioner Gram Pradhan to get an opportunity to inspect documents or to take such defence as permissible before individual or authority. He also contended that on 01.05.2010 itself show cause notice was issued which was replied by the petitioner by requesting that requisite record be made available for petitioner’s perusal in absence whereof she is not in a position to reply but without looking to that stand of the petitioner, impugned order has been passed abruptly and hurriedly by the District Magistrate. It is clearly in utter violation of statutory provisions contained in Enquiry Rules, 1997. In support of submissions, he placed reliance on this Court’s decision in Quadri Begum v. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 4 UPLBEC 3141 . 18. It is clearly in utter violation of statutory provisions contained in Enquiry Rules, 1997. In support of submissions, he placed reliance on this Court’s decision in Quadri Begum v. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 4 UPLBEC 3141 . 18. From a bare perusal of aforesaid facts, it is evident that procedure for inquiry prescribed in Rule 6 has not at all been followed or observed by the respondents. Rule 6 of 1997 Rules reads as under: “6. Procedure of the enquiry- (1). The substance of the 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 the imputations into definite and distinct articles of charge; and (b) a statement of the 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 the 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 enquire into such of that articles of charges as are not admitted and where all the article of charge 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. (4) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Inquiry Officer shall enquire into such of that articles of charges as are not admitted and where all the article of charge 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 charge in his written statement of defence, appears before the Inquiry Officer, he shall ask him whether he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiry officer shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of that person thereon, and return a finding of guilt in respect of those charge. (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 the discovery or production of any documents that are relevant to the inquiry and 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 the inquiry is being held may take the assistance of any other person to present the case on his behalf, and the Inquiry Officer may appoint any person as a Presenting Officer to assist him in conducting the inquiry: (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 (2), 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, forwarded 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 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 the 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 or security of the State, it shall inform the Inquiry Officer accordingly and the 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 the 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 who the inquiry is being held. The witnesses may be reexamined 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 he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to produced and an adjournment of the Inquiry 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 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- New evidence shall not be permitted or called for any witnesses 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 providing the articles of charge against the person against whom the 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 defendce 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. 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 the 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 may, after the completion of the production of evidence, hear the complainant, if any and the person against whom the inquiry is being held, or permit then, 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 or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this rule, the Inquiry Officer may hold the inquiry 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.” 19. Unfortunately, the District Magistrate has also not observed compliance of the said procedure and the impugned order has been passed by sheer non-application of mind. It is really strange that a high official like District Magistrate could have passed such an order without ensuring observance of procedure prescribed in Rue 6 of 1997 Rules. Unfortunately, the District Magistrate has also not observed compliance of the said procedure and the impugned order has been passed by sheer non-application of mind. It is really strange that a high official like District Magistrate could have passed such an order without ensuring observance of procedure prescribed in Rue 6 of 1997 Rules. Deprecating a similar kind of violation of aforesaid rule, this Court in Quadri Begum (supra), in paras 6 and 7 of the judgment, said as under: “6. In the present case , on the basis of the record it appears that neither the Inquiry Officer i.e the Executive Engineer nor the District Magistrate concerned, had complied with the provisions given in the Rules. The provisions contained in the Rules are statutory in nature and while holding a person guilty or misconduct in shall be incumbent upon the authorities to follow the provisions in letter and spirit. 7. The Pradhans who are elected and chosen by the people, should not be treated with undue hardship. In the present case, the false implication cannot be ruled out. The Rules contain detailed procedure with regard to holding of inquiry and for the submission of report by the Inquiry Officer. The principles of natural justice is the part and parcel of Article 14 of the Constitution. Non-compliance of the Rules renders the inquiry report as well as the removal order illegal. The provisions contained in the rules are mandatory in nature and should be adhered by the authorities while proceeding with the inquiry. The attention has not been invited towards any materiel on record by the respondent’s Counsel which may point out that Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules have been followed in the inquiry proceedings. The provisions contained in the rules are mandatory in nature and should be adhered by the authorities while proceeding with the inquiry. The attention has not been invited towards any materiel on record by the respondent’s Counsel which may point out that Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules have been followed in the inquiry proceedings. It is settled proposition of law that in case the authorities want to do anything, then that should be in the manner provided by the Act or statute (Rules) and not otherwise vide, Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1961 SC 1527 ; Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Laksmi Devi and others, AIR 1963 SC 1077 ; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and others, AIR 1964 SC 358 ; Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295 (Para 34); Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and others, 1999(8) SCC 266 : Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, 2000 (7) SCC 296 ; Dhananjay Reddy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512 , Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, 2002 (1) SCC 633 ; Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 486 and Rampal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SCC 1657. In the present case, at the face of record, the procedure given in the Rules (supra) have not been followed. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. 20. Since ex facie the procedure prescribed in the Rules has not been followed and from record record it is evident, to which even learned Standing Counsel could not dispute, this Court has no hesitation but to hold that the impugned order insofar as it imposes recovery of certain amount from petitioner cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. I am confining the said relief in the light of the stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner that after fresh election the writ petition survives only to this extent and he has pressed this writ petition only to this extent. 21. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 26.5.2010 insofar as it requires the petitioner to deposit certain amount, is hereby quashed. 21. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 26.5.2010 insofar as it requires the petitioner to deposit certain amount, is hereby quashed. However, this order shall not preclude the respondents to proceed afresh against petitioner, in accordance with law, since her cessation as Gram Pradhan will not result in cessation of any financial liability in respect of the work(s) done during the period, she held the office of Gram Pradhan. 22. No order as to costs. _____________