JUDGMENT : 1. Sri Alok Singh appears for petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Kant Agnihotri, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed challenging order dated 3.9.2020 passed by respondent no.2 seizing financial and administrative power of petitioner who is Gram Pradhan and nominating three members Committee of members of Gram Panchayat to act and discharge duties necessary for administration of Gram Panchayat during pendency of enquiry to be held against petitioner under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayatraj Act and U.P. Panchayatraj (Removal of Pradhans, Up Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 1997 Rules). 3. It is case of petitioner that on complaint being made of alleged irregularities committed by petitioner, by the member of Legislative Assemblyof constituency Biswan Sitapur in the year 2018, the then District Magistrate issue a letter to Block Development Officer, Biswan, Sitapur to find out correctness of complaint so made. The Block Development Officer by letter dated 4.12.2018 constituted a preliminary enquiry Committee consisting of one Junior Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Department, Biswan, one Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department, Biswan and one Assistant Development Officer (Panchayatraj) of Development Block Biswan, and in the report submitted on 24.8.2019 before Block Development Officer certain irregularities in carrying out development works and misappropriation of Rs.2,77,337/-was alleged. A show cause notice was issued on 14.10.2019 on the basis of such reported submitted by Block Development Officer to District Magistrate. The petitioner submitted reply on 5.12.2019 before District Magistrate specifically saying that all construction work has been carried out properlyand estimate prepared was verified by Technical Assistant in accordance with guidelines for MNREGA. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite such reply filed in time, the order impugned has been passed seizing financial and administrative powers of petitioner on 3.9.2020. He submits that under 1997 Rules a definition of "Enquiry Officer" is given in Rule 2(c) which means District Panchayatraj Officer or any other "district level officer" nominated by District Magistrate. Under Rule 4 a preliminary enquiry has to be made by Enquiry Officer with a view to find out if there is prima facie case for formal enquiry to be conducted in the matter. "Enquiry Officer" being defined as "district level officer", even for conduct of a preliminary enquiry, only District Magistrate could have nominated a "district level officer" for conducting the same. "Enquiry Officer" being defined as "district level officer", even for conduct of a preliminary enquiry, only District Magistrate could have nominated a "district level officer" for conducting the same. He has pointed out Paras 13 and 14 of writ petition where it has been stated that Preliminary Enquiry Committee was constituted by Block Development Officer consisting of three Block Level Officers in violation of Rule 2(c) and Rule 4 of 1997 Rules. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of Supreme Court in Babu Verghese vs. Bar Council of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 422 where Supreme Court held that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner or not at all. He has referred to observations made of similar nature in Writ Petition No.8137 (MS) of 2013 decided on 28.4.2014, and Writ Petition No.23948 (MS) of 2018 decided on 15.3.2019. Copies of such judgments have been filed as Annexures 5 and 6 to the petition. 6. It has been submitted on the basis of judgments rendered by this Court that even the preliminary enquiry has to be conducted by an officer as contemplated under Rule 2(c) of 1997 Rules i.e. District Panchayatraj Officer or any other "district level officer" nominated by District Magistrate. In this case, District Magistrate has not nominated Enquiry Officer nor the members of the Committee as District Level Officer therefore, preliminary enquiry report which has been made basis of order dated 3.9.2020 itself stood vitiated and therefore, order dated 3.9.2020 is also vitiated. 7. Counsel for petitioner has also pointed out the counter affidavit filed by State respondents, Paras 13 and 15 of which only make a bald statement that enquiry was carried out in accordance with procedure contemplated under Rule 4 of 1997 Rules. 8. Sri Ratnesh Kant Agnihotri has pointed out that in this case a Member of Legislative Assembly has filed complaint against petitioner. Under Rule 3(6) of 1997 Rules, it has been mentioned that it is not necessary to follow procedure in foregoing provisions of the Rule 3 if a complaint against Pradhan and Up Pradhan is made by public servant. 9. This Court has carefully perused Rule 3 which lays down the procedure relating to complaint. Entire Rule is being quoted hereinbelow; "3. 9. This Court has carefully perused Rule 3 which lays down the procedure relating to complaint. Entire Rule is being quoted hereinbelow; "3. Procedure relating to complaints-(1) Any person making a complaint against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan may send his complaint to the State Government or any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government. (2) Every complaint referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by the complainant's own affidavit in support thereof and also affidavits of all persons from whom he claims to have received information of facts relating to the accusation, verified before a notary, together with all documents in this 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 affidavits, respectively. (4) Not less than three copies of complaint as well as each of its annexures shall be submitted by the complainant. (5) A complaint which does not comply with any of the foregoing provisions of this rule shall not be entertained. (6) It shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in the foregoing provisions of this rule, if a complaint against a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is made by a public servant." 10. From perusal of sub rules (1) to (5) of the said Rules, it is apparent that they only relate to making of complaint supported on an affidavit and that the complaint along with necessary annexures has to be filed in triplicate, and that it should be duly verified in accordance with manner laid down in C.P.C. It is with regard to making of complaint by any person other than public servant, that sub rules (1) to (5) of Rule 3 provide the necessary conditions, and under sub rule (6) of Rule 3, liberty is given to District Magistrate not to insist upon affidavit, verification etc., laid down in foregoing sub rule (1) of Rule 3 if a complaint is made by public servant. 11. This Court has perused Rule 4 of 1997 Rules, which provides clearly for preliminary enquiry to be conducted with a view to find out with a prima facie case for formal enquiry in the matter by Enquiry Officer. 11. This Court has perused Rule 4 of 1997 Rules, which provides clearly for preliminary enquiry to be conducted with a view to find out with a prima facie case for formal enquiry in the matter by Enquiry Officer. The "Enquiry Officer" is defined in Rule 2(c) as either the District Panchayatraj Officer or any other district level officer nominated by District Magistrate. In this case, three members Committee was constituted by the Block Development Officer and it consisted of two Junior Engineers and one Assistant Development Officer (Panchayatraj). The preliminary enquiry report dated 19.12.2018 thus stands vitiated as preliminary enquiry was conducted not by the Enquiry Officer defined under Rule 2(c). The order dated 3.9.2020 passed by District Magistrate is also vitiated on this ground alone as it places reliance on such preliminary enquiry. 12. The order impugned dated 3.9.2020 is set aside leaving it open for District Magistrate to get a fresh preliminary enquiry conducted against the petitioner strictly in accordance with 1997 Rules and pass appropriate order thereafter. 13. The writ petition is allowed.