JUDGMENT : Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. 1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra assisted by Mr. Prafulla Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties. The relevant records pertaining to the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Committee headed by District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar as well as the records from the State Government have been placed before us and have been perused. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order no.924/33-2-2019-100 (3)/18 dated 8.3.2019, whereby the financial and administrative powers of petitioner in the capacity of Chairman, Zila Panchayat Siddharth Nagar has been ceased under proviso to Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) and Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti has been appointed as Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1997 Rules’). The petitioner has further sought quashing of order no.925/33-2-2019-100/(3)/18 dated 8.3.2019, whereby the interim committee has been appointed for discharging the functions of financial and administrative powers of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar till the discharge of the petitioner in the pending enquiry under Rule 5 of Rules, 1997. 3. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 4. As per the facts of the case in brevity, a complaint dated 23.1.2018 by the four members of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar was submitted to the State Government as per the provisions of Rule 3 of Rules, 1997. In pursuance to the complaint the State Government vide letter dated 6.2.2018 directed the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar to conduct preliminary enquiry and submit report within 15 days as per the provisions of Rules, 1997. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 8.3.2018 constituted a joint committee of four members comprising of Chief Development Officer, Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Baansi, Siddharth Nagar and Senior Treasury Officer, Siddharth Nagar so as to submit report with respect to the allegations in the complaint for the purpose of preliminary enquiry. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 8.3.2018 constituted a joint committee of four members comprising of Chief Development Officer, Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Baansi, Siddharth Nagar and Senior Treasury Officer, Siddharth Nagar so as to submit report with respect to the allegations in the complaint for the purpose of preliminary enquiry. The joint committee thereafter submitted its report vide letter dated 31.3.2018 to the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar. The District Magistrate vide letter dated 13.4.2018 (wrongly typed as 12.4.2018) submitted the report of the joint committee to the State Government. 5. The State Government thereafter vide letter dated 7.5.2018 rejected the joint committee report on the ground that the preliminary enquiry was not conducted by the District Magistrate as required under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 and directed the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar to conduct the preliminary enquiry as per Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 and submit report. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar thereafter constituted a five members committee vide office memorandum dated 28.5.2018 under his Chairmanship comprising of four other members viz. Chief Development Officer, Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Baansi, Siddharth Nagar and Senior Treasury Officer, Siddharth Nagar. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar thereafter vide letter dated 7.6.2018 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner along with fact finding report of joint committee dated 31.3.2018 seeking reply to the allegations to the extent of not convening the meeting of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1961 and failure to discharge of its official duties in the capacity of Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice vide letter dated 12.6.2018. The five member committee headed by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar thereafter evaluated the reply of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is prima-facie guilty of not convening the meeting of Zila Panchayat and is responsible for irregular payment of six construction works and accordingly preliminary enquiry report was forwarded to the State Government vide letter dated 6.8.2018. 6. It was thereafter that the State Government taking note of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the District Magistrare, Siddharth Nagar issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.9.2018, seeking reply from the petitioner within 15 days. 6. It was thereafter that the State Government taking note of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the District Magistrare, Siddharth Nagar issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.9.2018, seeking reply from the petitioner within 15 days. The petitioner in pursuance to the said show cause notice submitted his reply vide letter dated 15.10.2018, denying the allegations made therein. After submission of the reply dated 15.10.2018 by the petitioner, the State Government vide letter dated 6.11.2018 asked the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar to provide the details regarding the responsibility of each person towards the illegal payment in construction works including petitioner. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar submitted his reply in this regard vide letter dated 14.1.2019, however, the State Government not being satisfied with the reply dated 14.1.2019 again wrote letter dated 19.1.2019 to the District Magistrate to specifically indicate about the amount of responsibility of each and every individual person indicted in the preliminary enquiry. 7. Though the reply to the letter dated 19.1.2019 was awaited, however, on the basis of material already on record as per the preliminary enquiry report send by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar and the explanation of the same by the petitioner to the charges levelled in the preliminary enquiry report, the State Government proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner on the post of Chairman, Zila Panchayat and appointed the Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti as enquiry officer to hold a regular enquiry. The State Government further passed the consequential order dated 8.3.2019 appointing a three members committee to discharge the financial and administrative powers of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar till exoneration of the petitioner in the regular enquiry. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on the following grounds: (A). It has been done with mala fide intention and on political considerations. (B). The preliminary enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the mandatory statutory prescriptions under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 in as much as in the preliminary enquiry the officers viz. Chief Development Officer, Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and Senior Treasury Officer who are below the rank of District Magistrate have participated. (B). The preliminary enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the mandatory statutory prescriptions under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 in as much as in the preliminary enquiry the officers viz. Chief Development Officer, Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and Senior Treasury Officer who are below the rank of District Magistrate have participated. The District Magistrate has not applied his independent mind in coming to conclusion that the petitioner is prima-facie guilty of the allegations made against him. (C). The reply submitted by the petitioner against the show cause notice was virtually not considered as no reasons have been assigned for not accepting the said reply. (i). The show cause notice was issued for not holding periodical meetings of Zila Panchayat and five items of development works, whereas the impugned order has been passed considering six items of development works. (ii) The reply submitted by the petitioner against the show cause notice was sent to the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar for his comments. The District Magistrate did not afford any opportunity of hearing before submitting his comments and the report submitted by the District Magistrate was not supplied to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, thus, principle of natural justice have been violated. (D). The non requisitioning of periodical meetings of Zila Panchayat cannot be a ground for removal of an Adhyaksh of Zila Panchayat, and (E). The preparation of estimates on higher side cannot at all be alleged against a Adhyaksh of Zila Panchayat as an elected Adhyaksh is not a person of technical know how and most of the projects of more than Rs.10 lacs were sanctioned by the State Government itself. There are rules governing preparation of estimates where estimate preparation authority is fixed and there are also Rules governing requisitioning of meeting of Zila Panchayat by Apar Mukhya Adhikari. 9. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed in most arbitrary and mala-fide manner and on political considerations. The petitioner has contested election for becoming the Member of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar as well as Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar from Samajwadi Party. In March, 2017 a different political party had formed the Government in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner has contested election for becoming the Member of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar as well as Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar from Samajwadi Party. In March, 2017 a different political party had formed the Government in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The high dignitaries of the said party started making complaints for ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner as Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar as he belongs to different political fitment. In this regard a letter dated 29.8.2017 was written by Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Member of Legislative Assembly from Bhartiya Janta Party, Dumariyaganj, Siddharth Nagar as also the letter dated 13.12.2018 written by Mr. Jagdambika Pal, Member of Parliament, Dumariyaganj, Siddharth Nagar who also belongs to Bhartiya Janta Party. Not only this when the proceedings were pending before the State Government a Minister namely Sri Chetan Chauhan who is also Incharge Minister of District Siddharth Nagar proceeded to write a letter dated 21.02.2019 to the Minister of Panchayati Raj thereby recommending the names to be the members of Interim Committee. The letter dated 21.02.2019 was written on the basis of letter written by the District President, Bhartiya Janta Party, Siddharth Nagar namely Sri Lalji Tripathi and the said letter contains the signatures of five M.L.As out of which one is also a Cabinet Minister, Department of Excise, namely Sri Jai Pratap Singh and Member of Parliament from District Siddharth Nagar. The writing of letter dated 21.02.2019 by the Minister recommending the names to be included in the Interim Committee clearly reveals that the State Government was proceeding against the petitioner with a pre-determined mind and a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 by means of which three member Interim Committee has been constituted reveals that the names recommended in the letter dated 21.02.2019 are exactly the same as also in the same sequence as recommended in the letter dated 21.02.2019. Even otherwise also Smt. Kishmati Devi was also one of the complainants. She has been made as one of the members of Interim Committee, the remaining two other members of the Committee also belong to the ruling party. 10. Dr. Even otherwise also Smt. Kishmati Devi was also one of the complainants. She has been made as one of the members of Interim Committee, the remaining two other members of the Committee also belong to the ruling party. 10. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued in detail the provisions of Rule, 1997, particularly, Rule 4 in order to emphasise that as per Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 the District Magistrate alone is empowered to conduct a preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out if there is a prima-facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter. It is contended that mandatory statutory prescriptions under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 requires the District Magistrate alone to conduct the preliminary enquiry and no person below the rank of District Magistrate can be associated in the preliminary enquiry against an elected Adhyaksh of Zila Panchayat. 11. It is submitted that under Rule 4 (2) of Rules, 1997 the officer appointed under sub-rule (1) shall conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit its report to the State Government within a fortnight of his having been so appointed. Under sub rule (1) of Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 only District Magistrate is authorized to conduct the preliminary enquiry against Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat and no one else. When specific procedure has been prescribed under the statutory rules then there shall not be any deviation from those rules by the authorities concerned. 12. Submission is that in the present case the preliminary enquiry has not been conducted by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar alone. The preliminary enquiry report dated 6.8.2018 clearly indicates that it has been conducted by a committee consisting of officers below the rank of District Magistrate, as such, the said preliminary enquiry was not in accordance with Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 and, therefore, no action could be taken on the basis of said preliminary enquiry report. 13. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on following judgments: (1). Smt. Kesari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (3) E.S.C. 2209 , para 45, 55 to 59 and 139 (2). State of U.P. and others Vs. Janki Devi Pal, (2003) 3 SCC 117 , para 1, 2, 3 and 7 (3). Saroj Kumari Yadav Vs. State of U.P., 1998 Law Suit (All.) 759, para 1 to 22 (4). Smt. Kesari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (3) E.S.C. 2209 , para 45, 55 to 59 and 139 (2). State of U.P. and others Vs. Janki Devi Pal, (2003) 3 SCC 117 , para 1, 2, 3 and 7 (3). Saroj Kumari Yadav Vs. State of U.P., 1998 Law Suit (All.) 759, para 1 to 22 (4). Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (1) ADJ 228 ,para 18 to 22 (5). Baldev Prasad Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others, Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2015, passed in Writ-C No.20482/2015. (6). Chunmun Vs. The District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and others, 1998 (89) RD 721 14. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that if reply to the show cause notice is called then the same shall be considered and there should be application of mind and reasons should be recorded for not accepting the reply. Submission is that if consideration of reply has not been done then the order ceasing the administrative and financial powers is bad in the eyes of law. In support of this submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments: (1). Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2011 (29) LCD 221, para 48, 49, 64 to 71, 98 and 107 (2). Babita Kasaudhan Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 Law Suit (All.) 566,paras 1, 5, 6, 8 and 10 to 40 (3). Smt. Usha Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ C- No.17773 of 2016 (4). Nagar Panchayat, Safipur Vs. State of U.P., 2014 Law Suit (All.) 3839, paras 17 to 36 (5). Smt. Shanti Devi Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017 Law Suit (All.) 1846 paras 13 to 16 (6). Radhey Shyam Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and others, Judgment & order dated 14-02.2019 passed in W.P. No.3702 (MB) of 2019 (7). Hafiz Ataullah Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others (Full Bench), 2010 Law Suit (All.) 2383, paras 59, 60, 61, 79, 84 and 133 (8). Paras Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 Law Suit (All.) 3561, para 44 (iv). 15. The next submission is that not calling the periodical meeting of Zila Panchayat cannot be a ground for removal of an Adhyaksh of Zila Panchayat. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments: (1). Paras Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 Law Suit (All.) 3561, para 44 (iv). 15. The next submission is that not calling the periodical meeting of Zila Panchayat cannot be a ground for removal of an Adhyaksh of Zila Panchayat. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments: (1). Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others, (2012) 4 SCC 407 paras 62 to 65 (2). Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, Judgment & order dated 30.07.10 passed in W.P. No.3046 (MB) of 2010 16. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for irregular payment of certain development works as the preparation of estimates on higher side cannot at all be alleged against a Adhyaksh of Zila Panchayat as an elected Adhyaksha is not a person of technical know how and most of the projects of more than ten lacs were sanctioned by the State Government itself. There are Rules governing preparation of estimates where estimate preparation authority is fixed and there are also Rules governing requisitioning of meeting of Zila Panchayat by Apar Mukhya Adhikari. Once the estimates were prepared and sanction was granted for the said works then it cannot be said that the said estimates were on higher side and some irregular payment in this regard were made by the petitioner being Chairman of the Zila Panchayat. 17. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties as well as on the basis of the relevant records which have been placed before this Court submitted that the ground of political consideration taken by the petitioner is misconceived. The letter dated 21.02.2019 of the Minister for Sports, Youth Welfare and Vocational Education (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) is not on the official record of the State Government and hence it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 has been passed on any political consideration, moreover, the record of the State Government reveals that the decision for cessation of financial and administrative powers was taken on 25.01.2019 and at the level of Principal Secretary on 30.01.2019 pending approval from the concerning Minister. 18. 18. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further submitted that the preliminary enquiry report is perfectly in accordance with Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 as a five members committee under the chairmanship of District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar conducted the preliminary enquiry. It is submitted that the involvement of other officials in the preliminary enquiry is fully justified as the District Magistrate can always take aid of the technical experts in the field with respect to the allegations for the purpose of preliminary enquiry. Since the allegations were with respect to construction works and illegal payments, hence, the District Magistrate rightly constituted a committee under his chairmanship which included the Chief Development Officer, Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Baansi, Siddharth Nagar and Senior Treasury Officer. Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 do not prescribe any procedure to be adopted by the District Magistrate for conducting the preliminary enquiry. The District Magistrate under his wisdom constituted the committee headed by himself and sought explanation from the petitioner on the fact finding report of the joint committee dated 31.3.2018. The District Magistrate thereafter evaluated the explanation in reference to the charges submitted the preliminary enquiry report on the basis of the conclusions drawn by him with the aid and advice of other members of the committee headed by him and submitted the preliminary enquiry report along with letter dated 6.8.2018 to the State Government. The procedure adopted by the District Magistrate cannot be faulted upon as the allegations were such which requires technical advice as well as advice on the financial aspect of the allegations so as to reach to the conclusion for a prima-facie satisfaction. Thus, the preliminary enquiry report headed by the District Magistrate fulfills the requirement of Rule 4 of rules, 1997. 19. It is further submitted that the perusal of impugned order clearly indicates that the decision has been taken to cease the financial and administrative powers under Section 29 of the Act, 1961 after being prima-facie satisfied that the petitioner to have committed serious irregularities in not convening the meeting as per the mandate of Section 61 (1) and 58 (a) (i) of the Act, 1961 and has committed financial irregularities in illegal payments towards construction works being one of the signatory to the payments. 20. 20. It is also submitted that the order has been passed after considering the reply of the petitioner to the allegations in the preliminary enquiry report which were serious in nature, thus, it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed without any objective and subjective satisfaction as alleged by the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has relied on the following judgments: (1). Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2010 (4) UPLBEC 3278 (2). Udai Lal Vs. State of U.P., W.P. No.8278 (MS) of 2013 decided on 24.07.2014 paras 12 to 14 (3). Durga Prasad Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others, W.P. No.36507 of 2012 decided on 29.11.2012. 21. We have considered the submissions made by parties’ counsel and gone through the relevant records. 22. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed with mala fide intention and on political considerations, we find force in the submissions made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as the alleged letter dated 21.02.2019 of the said Minister is not on the official record of the State Government, hence, it cannot be said that the order dated 8.3.2019, whereby a three member committee was constituted to discharge the financial and administrative powers of the Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar was passed on the basis of the said letter. Moreover, the records of the State Government indicates that the decision of ceasing of financial and administrative powers was taken on 25.01.2019 and at the level of Principal Secretary on 30.01.2019 pending approval from the concerning Minister, thus, the allegation of mala fide and political consideration is not borne out from the records. 23. Now before considering other contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to first consider the relevant provisions under Rule, 1997 under which the procedure has been prescribed for making complaints and preliminary enquiry as well as regular enquiry is conducted against Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats. Rule 3 of Rules, 1997 provides the procedure relating to complaints, whereas Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 relates to preliminary enquiry, whereas Rule 5 is with respect to appointment of enquiry officer and Rule 6 provides the procedure for the regular enquiry. Rule 3 of Rules, 1997 provides the procedure relating to complaints, whereas Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 relates to preliminary enquiry, whereas Rule 5 is with respect to appointment of enquiry officer and Rule 6 provides the procedure for the regular enquiry. The relevant Rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Rules, 1997 are reproduced below: “3. Procedure relating to complaints. - (1) Any person making a complaint against a Pramukh, Up-Pramukh, Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha may send his complaint to the Secretary to the State Government in the Panchayati Raj Department, Vidhan Bhawan, Lucknow. (2) Every complaint referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by the complainant's own affidavit in support thereof and also affidavits of all persons from whom he claims to have received information of fact relating to the accusation, verified before a notary, together with all documents in his possession or power pertaining to the 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 affidavit respectively. (4) Not less than three copies of the complaint as well as of each of its annexures shall be submitted by the complainant. (5) A complaint which does not comply with any of the foregoing provisions shall not be entertained. 4. Preliminary enquiry. -(1) The State Government may, on the receipt of a complaint referred to in Rule 3, or otherwise appoint an officer not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate in the case of a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh and District. Magistrate in the case of an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha to conduct a preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out if there is a prima facie case for a formal enquiry in the matter. (2) The officer appointed under sub-rule (1) shall conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit his report to the State Government within a fortnight of his having been so appointed. 5. Enquiry Officer. (2) The officer appointed under sub-rule (1) shall conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit his report to the State Government within a fortnight of his having been so appointed. 5. Enquiry Officer. -Where the State Government is of the opinion, on the basis of the report referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, that an enquiry should be held against a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh under Section 16 or against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha under Section 29, it shall, by an order, appoint an officer to hold the enquiry, who shall not be below the rank of District Magistrate in the case of an enquiry under Section 16, and not below the rank of a Commissioner in the case of an enquiry under Section 29. 6. Procedure for 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 Enquiry Officer by the State Government. (2) The Enquiry 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 a list of witnesses by whom, the Articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. (3) The Enquiry 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 Enquiry Officer shall enquire into such of the Articles of charges as are not admitted, and where all the Articles of charges as are not admitted, and where all the Articles of charges have been admitted in the written statement of defence, the Enquiry 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 Enquiry 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 Enquiry 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 charges. (6) If the person fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, the Enquiry Officer shall take the evidence and if there is a complainant, require him to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the Articles of charge, and shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty 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 Enquiry 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; or (c) give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the Enquiry Officer may allow, for the discovery or production of any documents that are relevant to the enquiry 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 enquiry is being held may take the assistance of any other person to present the case on his behalf, and the Enquiry Officer may appoint any person as a Presenting Officer to assist him in conducting the enquiry: Provided that a legal practitioner shall not be engaged or appointed under this sub-rule. (7) The person against whom the enquiry is being held may take the assistance of any other person to present the case on his behalf, and the Enquiry Officer may appoint any person as a Presenting Officer to assist him in conducting the enquiry: 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 statements of witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (2), the Enquiry 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 Enquiry 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 being kept, with a requisition for the production of the documents by such date as may be specified in such requisition: Provided that the Enquiry 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 receipt of the requisition referred to in sub-rule (a), every authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents shall produce the same before the Enquiry 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 of such documents would be against the public interest or security of the State, it shall inform the Enquiry Officer accordingly and the Enquiry Officer shall, on being so informed, communicate the information to the person against whom the enquiry 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 Enquiry 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 enquiry is being held. The witnesses may be reexamined by the Enquiry 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 Enquiry Officer. (12) The Enquiry Officer may allow production of evidence not included in the list given to the person against whom the enquiry 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 be produced and an adjournment of the enquiry for three clear days before the production of such evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the enquiry is adjourned. The Enquiry Officer shall give the said person an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The Enquiry 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 or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally. (13) When the case for proving the Articles of charge against the person against whom the enquiry is being held, is closed, the said person shall be required to state his defence orally or in writings 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 enquiry 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 Enquiry 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 Enquiry Officer according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for proving the Articles of charge. (15) The Enquiry Officer may, after the person against whom the enquiry is being held closed 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 Enquiry Officer may, after the completion of the production of evidence, hear the complainant, if any, and the person against whom the 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 Enquiry Officer or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this rule, the Enquiry Officer may hold the enquiry ex parte. (18) Whenever any Enquiry 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 Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor or partly recorded by himself : Provided that if the succeeding Enquiry 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 reexamine any such witness as hereinbefore provided.” 24. Under Rule 4 (1) the State Government may on receipt of a complaint referred to in Rule 3 or otherwise appoint an officer not below the rank of District Magistrate in the case of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha to conduct a preliminary enquiry in order to find out if there is a prima-facie case for holding a formal enquiry in the matter. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 provides that officer appointed under sub rule (1) shall conduct the preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit his report to the State Government within a fortnight of his having been so appointed. 25. In the case of Smt. Kesari Devi Vs. State of U.P. (supra) this Court has held that a specific procedure has been prescribed under the statutory rules then there cannot be any possibility of making any deviation therefrom by the authority concerned. The relevant paragraphs 55 to 59 are reproduced below: “55. The aforesaid provisions make it crystal clear that a specific procedure has been prescribed under the statutory rules and there is no possibility of making any deviation there from by the Authorities concerned. 56. The 1997 Rules, quoted hereinabove, clearly provide that the preliminary inquiry has to be conducted, in the case of an Adhyaksha, by the District Magistrate and in the case of Upadhyaksha and Member, by Additional District Magistrate. It is, thus, clear that only the District Magistrate can hold the inquiry. The words used in the Statute have to be construed strictly. 57. In Kailash Nath Agarwal and Ors. Vs. Pradeshiya Indust. & Inv. Corporation of U.P. and Anr., , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the legislature has used two different words in the same statute, it is to be construed as carrying different meanings. 58. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the said Rule 4 of 1997 Rules in State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Smt. Janki Devi Pal, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court interpreting the said rule held as under:- "The draftsman of the Rules has clearly used the term "District Magistrate" as distinct from the term "Additional District Magistrate". The definition of District Magistrate in clause (14) of Section 2 of the Act is not applicable if there be something repugnant in the subject or context. The very use of "Additional District Magistrate" and "District Magistrate" in the same rule, consisting of one sentence, clearly suggests that the two terms are used in two different meanings. The definition of District Magistrate in clause (14) of Section 2 of the Act is not applicable if there be something repugnant in the subject or context. The very use of "Additional District Magistrate" and "District Magistrate" in the same rule, consisting of one sentence, clearly suggests that the two terms are used in two different meanings. The High Court appears to be right in holding that an inquiry against a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh can be held by an officer not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate while as against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha -these two being democratically elective offices, higher in status than that of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh-the inquiry should be held by the District Magistrate." 59. Thus, it is evident from the above that the preliminary inquiry is to be conducted only by the District Magistrate and he cannot ask any other officer to hold the inquiry.” 26. It has been further held that the enquiry may be held only by the District Magistrate and no one else. The relevant paragraph 139 of the above judgment is reproduced below: “139. In view of the law, referred to above, as the inquiry could be held only by the District Magistrate and no one else, the preliminary inquiry stood vitiated and there was nothing before the State Government on the basis thereof it could order the regular inquiry. Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules empowers the State Government to appoint the Investigating Officer for the purpose of regular inquiry only if it is of the opinion, on the basis of the preliminary inquiry report submitted under Rule 4(2) of the 1997 Rules, that it requires a regular inquiry. Firstly, the complaint was not maintainable and secondly the preliminary inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law by the District Magistrate himself. The State Government, therefore, could not hold the regular inquiry. While directing the regular inquiry against the petitioner, the State Government deprived her the right to exercise her administrative and financial powers and for that purpose a three member committee was appointed. One member of this Committee was the complainant herself. The matter had been contested and the order dated 19.06.2004 is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Court had been pleased to grant interim relief in favour of the petitioner.” 27. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. One member of this Committee was the complainant herself. The matter had been contested and the order dated 19.06.2004 is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Court had been pleased to grant interim relief in favour of the petitioner.” 27. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Janki Devi Pal (supra) the Apex Court has come to conclusion that Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 clearly mandates that the enquiry against an elected Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall be held by the District Magistrate and not by Additional District Magistrate. Paragraph 7 of judgment is relevant which is reproduced below: “7. It is careless and clumsy drafting of Rule 4 which is responsible for the situation. The draftsman of the rules has clearly used the term 'District Magistrate' as distinct from the term 'Additional District Magistrate'. The definition of District Magistrate in Clause (14) of Section 2 of the Act is not applicable if there be something repugnant in the subject or context. The very use of Additional District Magistrate' and 'District Magistrate' in the same rule, consisting of one sentence, clearly suggests that the two terms are used in two different meanings. The High Court appears to be right in holding that an inquiry against a Pramukh or Uppramukh can be held by an officer not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate while as against Adhyaksh or Upadhyaksh-these two being democratically elective offices, higher in status than that of Pramukh or Uppramukh, the inquiry should be held by the District Magistrate. The contention advanced on behalf of the State of U.P. before the High Court as also before this Court runs counter to the language of the rule drafted by its own executive wing. Once the flaw was pointed by the High Court, the State of U.P. should have promptly removed the flaw in the rule by amending the same instead of filing special leave petition and keeping the certainty of law in suspension The State is one of the largest litigants and such tendency on the part of the State of adding to the bulk of pending cases when it can be avoided by taking a quick and convenient step of amending its own rule has to be deprecated.” 28. Same legal proposition has been enumerated by this Court in the cases of Saroj Kumari Yadav Vs. Same legal proposition has been enumerated by this Court in the cases of Saroj Kumari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (supra), Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), Baldev Prasad Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) and Chunmun Vs. The District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and others (supra) which have been relied by learned counsel for the petitioner. 29. Considering the submissions made by parties counsel and perusing the relevant records in the present case we find that a complaint dated 23.1.2018 by four members of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar was submitted to the State Government as per the provisions of Rule 3 of Rules, 1997. The state Government vide letter dated 6.2.2018 had directed the District Magistrate to conduct the preliminary enquiry and submit the report within 15 days. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 8.3.2018 had constituted a joint committee of four members comprising of Chief Development Officer, Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and Senior Treasury Officer, Siddharth Nagar. The said joint committee had submitted its report vide letter dated 31.3.2018 to the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, which was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the State Government, however, the State Government had rejected the said joint committee report vide letter dated 7.5.2018 and directed the District Magistrate to conduct the preliminary enquiry as required under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 and submit the report. 30. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar thereafter constituted a five members committee vide office order dated 28.5.2018. This time the District Magistrate was the Chairman of the said committee which also included the Chief Development Officer, Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and Senior Treasury Officer, Siddharth Nagar. 31. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar vide letter dated 7.6.2018 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. It was informed to the petitioner that the Chief Development Officer, Siddharth Nagar vide letter dated 31.3.2018 had submitted his enquiry report in which he has been found responsible for not calling the meeting of Zila Panchayat and have been negligent in discharging his work on the post Chairman. The petitioner was called upon to submit his reply in this regard within five days so that further proceedings can be held. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice vide letter dated 12.6.2018. The petitioner was called upon to submit his reply in this regard within five days so that further proceedings can be held. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice vide letter dated 12.6.2018. It was thereafter that the five members committee headed by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar submitted the preliminary enquiry report to the State Government vide letter dated 6.8.2018. 32. It is to be noted that there is no requirement of associating the Chairman of Zila Panchayat against whom the preliminary enquiry is being conducted in the said enquiry or to issue a show cause notice calling upon him to submit his reply. The law is well settled as has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) that the preliminary enquiry is a fact finding enquiry to ascertain if there is any prima-facie case. The Chairman is not entitled to participate in the preliminary enquiry. 33. In the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (supra) the court was seized with a matter relating to the preliminary enquiry conducted against a sitting Pradhan under Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, however, the procedure prescribed for conducting the preliminary enquiry under Rule, 1997 as well as U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules are para material the same and, as such, the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (supra) is fully applicable in the present case. Paragraphs 45, 48, 63 and 68 are relevant in this regard, which are reproduced below: “45. In our opinion, the proviso to section 95(1) provides for reasonable opportunity in proceedings for removal of a pradhan under section 95(1)(g). But it does not apply to the proviso to section 95(1)(g) providing preliminary or fact finding enquiry: the purpose of this enquiry is to find out if there is any prima facie case against the pradhan or not. 48. It is relevant to point out that Khettra-Zila Panchayat Raj Act has similar provisions (section 16 and 29) and similar rules have been framed. In the Municipalities Act, there is neither any proviso similar to the proviso to section 95(1)(g) mandating enquiry nor any rules have been framed. 63. 48. It is relevant to point out that Khettra-Zila Panchayat Raj Act has similar provisions (section 16 and 29) and similar rules have been framed. In the Municipalities Act, there is neither any proviso similar to the proviso to section 95(1)(g) mandating enquiry nor any rules have been framed. 63. In our opinion: (i) The word 'otherwise' in rule 4 means that the DM has suo motu powers to order a preliminary enquiry; (ii) In an appropriate case, the DM may order a preliminary enquiry even if there is, No complaint or report; or A defective complaint, not in accordance with rules 3(1) to 3(4). (iii) A pradhan has no right to object that a complaint is not in accordance with rule 3(1) to 3(4) of the Enquiry Rules; 68. In view of our decision and reasons detailed in the Hafiz case, a pradhan is neither entitled to be associated in the preliminary enquiry nor is he entitled to get the copy of the preliminary enquiry report--his only right is to have his explanation or point of view or version to the charges considered before the order for ceasing his financial and administrative power is passed.” 34. In the present case, the preliminary enquiry was earlier conducted by a joint committee headed by Chief Development Officer and the report dated 31.3.2018 of the said joint committee was submitted to the State Government vide letter dated 13.4.2018. The State Government had rejected the said report of the joint committee on the ground that the preliminary enquiry was not conducted by the District Magistrate as required under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 and directed the District Magistrate to conduct a preliminary enquiry by himself. It was thereafter that the District Magistrate had constituted a five members committee under his Chairmanship. The District Magistrate however thereafter did not conduct any preliminary enquiry and merely issued a show cause notice annexing the earlier report dated 31.3.2018 of the joint committee headed by the Chief Development Officer calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply. After receiving the reply to the said show cause notice the District Magistrate submitted his report dated 6.8.2018 to the State Government and the State Government thereafter proceeded on the basis of said report dated 6.8.2018 and has passed the impugned order dated 8.3.2019. 35. After receiving the reply to the said show cause notice the District Magistrate submitted his report dated 6.8.2018 to the State Government and the State Government thereafter proceeded on the basis of said report dated 6.8.2018 and has passed the impugned order dated 8.3.2019. 35. No date, time or place was fixed by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar to hold any preliminary enquiry and from the relevant records pertaining to the preliminary enquiry it is very much clear that the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar had submitted the preliminary enquiry report dated 6.8.2018 after receiving the reply submitted by the petitioner. 36. It also borne out from the record that Ms. Harshita Mathur, Chief Development Officer, Siddharth Nagar vide noting dated 6.6.2018 had submitted to the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar that the State Government vide letter dated 7.5.2018 has directed that the preliminary enquiry against the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar shall be conducted in accordance with Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 and the report be submitted to the State Government. It is in pursuance of the said letter that new team has been constituted vide letter dated 28.5.2018. Since the shortcomings have been found in the earlier report of the joint committee, as such, on the basis of said joint committee report a show cause notice be issued to the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar and other concerning persons. The proforma of show cause notice prepared in this regard separately is placed on record. 37. As such, it is evidently clear that the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar had proceeded to submit the enquiry report dated 6.8.2018 merely on the basis of show cause notice on the enquiry report of the joint committee headed by the Chief Development Officer and he had himself not conducted any preliminary enquiry as required under law. 38. It is surprising to note as to when the State Government had not accepted the joint committee report dated 31.3.2018 and had directed the District Magistrate to conduct a fresh preliminary enquiry by himself as required under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997, then why the District Magistrate had not conducted any enquiry himself and had merely issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply to the joint committee’s report dated 31.3.2018 which was itself not accepted by the State Government. 39. 39. In fact, the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar had submitted the preliminary enquiry report dated 6.8.2018 on the basis of enquiry held by the joint committee headed by the Chief Development Officer, Siddharth Nagar. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Kesari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) as well as other judgments on the issue of the Apex Court as well as of this Court it is very much clear that under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 the enquiry is to be held against the Chairman of Zila Panchayat by District Magistrate himself and he could not have submitted the enquiry report on the basis of the joint committee’s report dated 31.3.2018 as the said joint committee report was not based on the enquiry held by District Magistrate himself. 40. From the records, we find that no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate after the matter was remanded back to him by the State Government to conduct a fresh preliminary enquiry by himself as required under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997. 41. We are not on the issue as to whether the District Magistrate could have associated certain other officers in the preliminary enquiry or not and whether the report dated 6.8.2018 submitted by the committee headed by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar was in accordance with Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 or not. What we find from the record is that the District Magistrate has not conducted any preliminary enquiry pursuant to the letter date 7.5.2018 of the State Government whereby the earlier preliminary enquiry report dated 31.3.2018 of joint committee headed by the Chief Development Officer was not accepted by the State Government and the District Magistrate was directed to conduct the preliminary enquiry as required under Rule 4 of Rule, 1997. 42. We are of the considered view that the preliminary enquiry report dated 6.8.2018 submitted by the Committee headed by the District Magistrate as such could not be treated to be a report on the basis of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar. 43. 42. We are of the considered view that the preliminary enquiry report dated 6.8.2018 submitted by the Committee headed by the District Magistrate as such could not be treated to be a report on the basis of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar. 43. We may clarify that the District Magistrate while holding the preliminary enquiry under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 could have taken into consideration any material which may have been brought to his knowledge including any enquiry conducted by any other authority or officer with respect to the allegations made in the complaint against the sitting Chairman of Zila Panchayat, however, the requirement of the law is that he should have held an enquiry himself in order to find out prima-facie as to whether the allegations made in the complaint are correct or not and whether any regular enquiry is required to be held. 44. Since we have come to this conclusion that the preliminary enquiry in the present case was not conducted by the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in accordance with Rule 4 of Rules, 1997, as such, we do not find it necessary to consider other submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the challenge to the impugned order. We leave all such contention open to be considered at appropriate time in any other case. 45. The order impugned have been passed on the basis of preliminary enquiry report dated 6.8.2018 which has not been conducted as per the requirement under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997, as such, they are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 46. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Order no.924/33-2-2019-100 (3)/18 dated 8.3.2019, whereby the financial and administrative powers of petitioner in the capacity of Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar has been ceased is hereby quashed. The consequential order no.925/33-2-2019-100/(3)/18 dated 8.3.2019, whereby the interim committee has been appointed for discharging the functions of financial and administrative powers of Zila Panchayat, Siddharth Nagar till the discharge of the petitioner in the pending enquiry is also quashed. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar may hold fresh preliminary enquiry in accordance with the requirement of Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 and submit the report to the State Government within a period of fifteen days from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar may hold fresh preliminary enquiry in accordance with the requirement of Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 and submit the report to the State Government within a period of fifteen days from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. The State Government, thereafter, shall call for the reply from the petitioner and thereafter proceed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously, without undue delay. 47. The relevant records shall be returned to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to be remitted back to the concerning authorities.