SWAMI PRASAD PRADHAN Vs. HARGOVIND SAHAI MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution is referred to a Full Bench at the instance of Kirty, J. on the ground that there is a conflict in deci sions of Division Benches of this Court and the legal position is anomalous.

(2.) THE petitioner Swami Prasad was elected Pradhan of the Bilrai Gaon Sabha in 1960 but was placed under suspension by an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahoba dated 17th October, 1967. The petitioner Swami Prasad has challenged the order of suspension as Invalid on several grounds.The order of suspension reads as follows: "Under Collector's order dated 29-9-67 Sri Swami Prasad, Pradhan Gaon Sabha Bilrai is placed under suspension with im mediate effect. Tahsildar Mahoba will please get his charge transferred to Up- pradhan in consultation with B. D. O. Kabrai He has been suspended for giving leases illegally to the persons. Charge-sheet will be followed later on." There is no doubt that the petitioner Swami Prasad has been suspended pend ing a departmental enquiry on the ground that he had given leases illegally to some persons.

(3.) THE order of suspension is attribut ed to the power conferred by Section 95 (I) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It Is the State Government which has the power under this section to sus pend or remove, inter alia, an officer of a Gaon Sabha, but Section 96-A of the Act enables the State Government to delegate all or any of its powers under the Act to any subordinate officer or authority. In pursuance of this provision the power under Section 95 (1) (g) has been delegat ed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, but not to the Collector. It follows that the Col lector has no authority to exercise the power under that section and any orders passed by him under that section are un authorised. The order in question, though recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, is referable to the order of the Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer has not himself taken the decision to suspend the peti tioner. On this ground alone the order ought to be declared as invalid and the petition disposed of accordingly. However, this reference to the Full Bench has been made on a legal question which, in fair ness, ought also to be considered and we proceed to do so,