Sanjay Misra, J:- This special appeal has been filed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 6 November 2013. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge set aside an order of the District Magistrate under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, by which the fourth respondent was removed as Gram Pradhan on the ground of having committed financial irregularities. The learned Single Judge has referred to the financial report and has found that there is a specific finding that the relevant project work has been carried out and no loss of revenue has been incurred. The irregularity, however, was that the fourth respondent issued a cheque in favour of her husband, who withdrew the amount and disbursed it to the contractors and to the Suppliers of material and labour. This was held to be against the guidelines of the State Government. However, according to the learned Single Judge, an infraction of the guidelines was not fatal in the absence of any financial irregularity. The appellant is an elected member of the Gram Sabha and was one of the complainants, who had filed a complaint, which eventually resulted in the action which was taken against the fourth respondent. The appellant had filed an impleadment application before the learned Single Judge and his grievance is that without considering the impleadment application, the petition was allowed on the very first day. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the special appeal on the ground that the appellant has no locus standi to maintain the appeal in view of a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (2) AWC 2002 . In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Division Bench held that, as a complainant, the appellant, at the most, could be examined as a witness in the enquiry but could not be permitted to become a party in the lis. Hence, it was held that such an applicant did not have any locus to maintain the appeal and the application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected. 4. Having regard to the Division Bench judgment referred to above, we are of the view that the appeal would not be maintainable at the behest of the appellant. Hence, it was held that such an applicant did not have any locus to maintain the appeal and the application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected. 4. Having regard to the Division Bench judgment referred to above, we are of the view that the appeal would not be maintainable at the behest of the appellant. However, since it is a grievance of the appellant that the impugned judgment was delivered without considering the impleadment application, we leave it open to the appellant to adopt a suitable remedy before the learned Single Judge by way of review or recall. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the maintainability of the application, which the appellant proposes to move, which shall be considered on its own merits by the learned Single Judge. 5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________