SALIG RAM MISRA Vs. COLLECTOR DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner who is Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha has been served with certain charges and has been required to snow cause. This indicates that proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are pending against the Petitioner. The impugned order was passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer suspending the Petitioner pending enquiry into the charges. This order has apparently been passed under Section 95(1)(gg) of the Act. It is this order of suspension which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) IT has been urged by the counsel for the Petitioner that before passing the impugned order of suspension the Petitioner should have been given a show cause notice. We find it difficult to agree with this submission. The proviso occurring below Sub -section (4) of Section 95 of the Act reads thus:

(3.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner then urged that before the prima facie satisfaction, as contemplated by Clause (ii) of the proviso aforesaid is recorded, there has to be some material to justify the prima facie satisfaction. The material on the basis of which the Sub -Divisional Officer's prima facie satisfaction is based is mentioned in the impugned order itself. Whether after the explanation of the Petitioner is considered the charges levelled against him will be found proved or not, cannot obviously be considered at this stage inasmuch as a finding in that regard is to be given in the proceedings under Section 95 (1)(g) of the Act. In this view of the matter the impugned order cannot be said to be invalid on the ground that the explanation of the Petitioner has not been discussed and no finding about its correctness or otherwise has been recorded.