JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav 'Warsi', learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 31.12.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.4, whereby upon the complaint/representation made by the petitioner against the respondent No.4 raising issues of embezzlement and wrongful allotment but the respondent No.2 finding that no case has been made out has rejected the representation of the petitioner. 3. In order to appreciate the controversy, briefly the facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed first. 4. The petitioner had made a complaint/representation before the respondent No.4 raising allegations of embezzlement committed by the Village Pradhan namely Smt. Sunita Devi as well as inappropriate recommendations made by the Village Pradhan for granting undue benefits under Pradhan Mantri Yojna to such persons who were not eligible amongst others. It is alleged that the same was not enquired into nor any enquiry was held and yet by means of the impugned order dated 31.12.2020, it has been rejected despite a direction of this Court for deciding the representation in accordance with law. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition No.5379 of 2020 (PIL) wherein allegations were made against the Village Pradhan and an enquiry was sought to be instituted, however, a Division Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 28.02.2020 disposed of the said writ petition of the petitioner permitting him to raise all such complaints in terms of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayati (Removal of Pradhans/Up Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997, before the concerned authority. 6. It is further urged that in furtherance thereof, the petitioner made his complaint on 20.03.2020, a copy of the said complaint was sent to the respondents by post and later it was also handed over in person during the Tehsil Divas. 7. 6. It is further urged that in furtherance thereof, the petitioner made his complaint on 20.03.2020, a copy of the said complaint was sent to the respondents by post and later it was also handed over in person during the Tehsil Divas. 7. Since, the matter remained pending and was not being decided, the petitioner preferred another petition bearing Writ Petition No.24296 of 2020 (M/S) with specific averments that in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner had moved a complaint, which has not yet been decided and in this context, the Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 16.12.2020 directed the District Magistrate, Sultanpur to pass appropriate orders on the pending application of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of the order was produced before him. 8. It is further urged that the petitioner again sent a reminder to the respondent on 24.12.2020. It is submitted that once it was brought to the notice of the respondent that they were required to decide the representation of the petitioner, the respondent by means of the order dated 31.12.2020 rejected the same finding that no allegation made against the Village Pradhan for the alleged irregularities and financial embezzlement were made out. 9. It has also been pointed out that the impugned order refers to an order dated 16.08.2020 wherein an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The order also refers to an enquiry report dated 18.03.2020 and a supplementary report dated 19.10.2020 and thereafter considering the same, the representation of the petitioner dated 22.12.2020 has been rejected. 10. It is further submitted that the representation of the petitioner was dated 20.03.2020, hence, the enquiry report as mentioned in the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 would not be correct and apparently that an incorrect averment has been made in the impugned order. Even there is nothing on record to indicate that the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 16.08.2020 and thus, without holding an enquiry, the representation of the petitioner has been decided which indicates that the process as provided under the law has not been adopted and the impugned order being apparently bad deserves to be set aside. 11. Even there is nothing on record to indicate that the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 16.08.2020 and thus, without holding an enquiry, the representation of the petitioner has been decided which indicates that the process as provided under the law has not been adopted and the impugned order being apparently bad deserves to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while defending the order has submitted that the petitioner along with certain other persons of the village concerned have been making repeated complaints. On the earlier complaint of the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 16.08.2019, however, inadvertently in the impugned order, the date of appointment of the Enquiry Officer has been mentioned as 16.08.2020 which is regretted. 12. It has further been urged that the complaint of the petitioner and other persons of the village has been considered including pointwise averments and since in light of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, no such allegations were found to be substantiated. Consequently, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. Thus, the matter does not require any interference from this Court and deserves to be dismissed. 13. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the record. 14. At the very outset, it may be stated that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur does not inspire confidence. It is unfortunate, to state, that the affidavit of the District Magistrate, Sultanpur has been filed in a casual manner, which is not appreciated. 15. The petitioner had made a specific complaint dated 20.03.2020. In this view of the matter, the averments stated in the counter affidavit as well as in the impugned order that the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 16.08.2019 (which has been mentioned as 16.08.2020 in the impugned order) is also not right. 16. From the material on record, it would indicate that the petitioner first had preferred a PIL which was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities in light of the relevant Rules. 17. The application was moved by the petitioner dated 20.03.2020 which did not evoke any response. The petitioner thereafter preferred another petition seeking expeditious disposal of the same and after the said order was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 16.12.2020, the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2020. 18. 17. The application was moved by the petitioner dated 20.03.2020 which did not evoke any response. The petitioner thereafter preferred another petition seeking expeditious disposal of the same and after the said order was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 16.12.2020, the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2020. 18. From a perusal of the impugned order, it would indicate that it does not refer to any averment which was made in the complaint dated 20.03.2020. It is also found that the issues considered in the enquiry report dated 18.03.2020 (which actually is dated 18.03.2019) relates to earlier complaints made by the petitioner and some other persons, however, the fact remains that the direction was issued by a Division Bench permitting the petitioner to approach the authorities by filing a fresh complaints and subsequently by means of the order dated 16.12.2020, a direction was issued to the concerned authority to decide the complaint dated 20.03.2020 which has not yet been done till date. 19. The impugned order states and records the tenor and text of the order dated 16.12.2020, but it does not reflect any averment of the complaint and issues raised by the petitioner in his complaint dated 20.03.2020. Thus, to the aforesaid extent the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-State does not indicate the true and correct picture and the facts having not been stated correctly rather a futile attempt is being made to defend an order which is not in consonance with the directions given by this Court and for that reason, this Court finds that the order dated 31.12.2020 is nothing but a sham compliance sought to be made. This stand of the State is not appreciated. 20. The issue at hand is regarding the allegation made by the petitioner in the complaint dated 20.03.2020 which admittedly has been received by the State. It is the averments made in that complaint dated 20.03.2020 which was to be decided. Apparently, no Enquiry Officer was appointed after 20.03.2020 when the State-respondents received the complaint nor is it the case of the State that the Enquiry Officer appointed on 16.08.2019 was even required to enquire and give a finding on the complaint dated 20.03.2020. Moreover, the impugned order does not relate or refer to any averment/allegations made by the petitioner in its complaint dated 20.03.2020. Moreover, the impugned order does not relate or refer to any averment/allegations made by the petitioner in its complaint dated 20.03.2020. Thus, the impugned order has been passed without holding an enquiry which is per se bad, hence, the rejection of the complaint/representation vide order dated 31.12.2020 is bad and cannot be sustained. 21. This Court is of the opinion that the manner in which the State has proceeded is not appreciable, hence, the impugned order is set aside and quashed. The District Magistrate, Sultanpur will constituted a three Member Committee to hold an enquiry in terms of the relevant Rules and in context with the complaint of the petitioner dated 20.03.2020 forthwith and an endeavour should be made to complete the enquiry within three months from the date, a certified copy of this judgment and order is placed before the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and after completing the enquiry, a copy of the same shall be sent to the Senior Registrar of this Court to be placed on record of this case. 22. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.12.2020 is set aside. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.