AJAI KUMAR SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, a Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha, challenges the order dated 3rd April, 1985, passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Manjhanpur, suspending him from the office of the Pradhan.

(2.) A perusal of the order dated 3rd April, 1985, shows that the Sub -Divisional officer prima -facie feels that there are grave charges of financial irregularities against the Petitioner. He, accordingly appointed the Tahsildar, Manjhanpur as an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges and submit his report. In the order details of lapses committed by the Petitioner have been mentioned. The Sub Divisional Officer forwarded a copy of his order to the Block Development Officer with a direction that the same should be served upon the Petitioner and a receipt obtained from him (the Petitioner).

(3.) THE question, therefore, is: are proceedings under Clause (g) for the removal of the Petitioner pending or contemplated? Here we are not concerned with the third situation, namely, the prosecution for an offence, which in the opinion of the State Government involves moral turpitude. For answering the question we revert to the impugned order. We have read it more than once and we are satisfied that the proceedings for the removal of the Petitioner from the office of the Pradhan are pending and an enquiry as to whether he should or should not be removed is going on. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that the provisions as contained in Clause (gg) are squarely attracted to the case of the Petitioner. Since no final order has yet been passed, the question of fulfilling the requirements of the conditions enumerated in the first proviso to Sub -section (4) of Section 95 does not arise. So far as the requirement of the second proviso is concerned, we have already stated that the sub -divisional Officer has passed a detailed order. A bare reading of the order indicates that he is more than prima facie satisfied that the grounds on which the action should be taken against the Petitioner under Clause (g) exist.