cancellation of settlement of Plot nos.369 and 370 as well as for eviction of Pradhan and his nephew from the said plot. It was also held by the respondent no.3 that if the Pradhan rectifies the said irregularities within 30 days he would be exempted after giving admonition. The petitioners thereafter agitated the matter before the respondent no.4, who, on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, Saraiyahat submitted vide letter no.336 dated 24th April, 1986, observed that the Pradhan did not remove the encroachment as per the direction of the respondent no.3 and as such he made recommendation before the respondent no.3 for dismissal of the Pradhan vide order dated 19th December, 1986. The respondent no.3 on the basis of the said recommendation of the respondent no.4 dismissed the Pradhan from his post. In the meantime, the Pradhan died and an appeal was preferred by his wife and sons before the respondent no.2 being R.M.A. No.7 of 1987-88. The respondent no.2, while considering the said appeal, observed that as per the order of the respondent no.3, the Pradhan was required to remove the encroachment, however, he repeatedly wrote to the respondent no.4 that he had not encroached any land and also informed the said authority that the persons who had encroached the land were not vacating the same. The Pradhan also requested the D.C.L.R. for making an enquiry regarding actual encroachers of the land. The respondent no.4, however, did not take any step in this regard. Under the said circumstance, it was also held by the respondent no.2 that the way the respondent no.3 dismissed the Pradhan from his post was not justified.
