Sanjay Misra - (1.)HEARD Sri V.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.K. Dwivedi for respondent No. 4 who is the complainant against the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
(2.)THE petitioner claims to have been elected as Pradhan of the Village Barsavan, District Basti in the year 2000 as also re-elected in the year 2005. He is aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Basti whereby a sum of Rs. 11,750 has been directed to be realized from the petitioner under Section 27 (1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an ex parte enquiry report dated 9.6.2008 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) was made against the petitioner and other officials involved in development of the village whereupon a notice dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) under Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was given to him. The petitioner contends that he submitted his reply to the notice under Section 95 (1) (g) on 27.8.2008 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) whereafter the impugned order dated 19.11.2008 has been passed under Section 27 (1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 95(1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act contemplate removal of Pradhan for which the procedure has been prescribed. He distinguishes the proceedings under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act for liability to pay surcharge for loss caused to money or property of the Gram Panchayat and the procedure prescribed therein.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner the proceedings under Section 95 (1).(g) are for removal of the Pradhan and the procedure to be followed there in is quite alien to the procedure prescribed for fixing liability to pay for the loss occasioned to the property or money by imposition of surcharge.

(3.)LEARNED counsel has referred to Section 27 of the Act and Chapter XIII of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules 1947 and states that Rule 256,257,258,259 and 280 would govern the field. He states that none of the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid rules have been followed in the present case inasmuch as after show-cause notice under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act and filing of the explanation of the petitioner the impugned order has been passed under Section 27 of the Act.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 as also learned Standing Counsel submit that upon the enquiry report dated 9.6.2008 a prima facie satisfaction was recorded by the District Magistrate who had issued the notice dated 21.7.2008 and although a notice under Section 95 (1) (g) has been issued it cannot be a bar for the authorities to proceed against petitioner under Section 27. They state that the impugned order has been passed within jurisdiction after issue of notice under Section 95 (1) (g) and surcharge has been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 27(1) of the Act.