P.P.Gupta - (1.) BY this writ petition, Ram Naresh Singh Yadava, the petitioner, who is a duly appointed Pradhan of village Murki Agadha in the year 1988, has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of his suspension dated 12th February 1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mohammadabad, district Ghazipur, respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE petitioner was elected Pradhan of village Murki Agadha in the year 1988. One Bhagwan Singh Yadava and others filed a complaint on 29th August, 1991 before the District Magistrate, Ghazipur alleging that the petitioner had embezzled some amounts under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna and thereby caused harm to the Gaon Sabha property. An enquiry was conducted by the Junior Engineer who recorded that misappropriation of some amount has been done by the petitioner. THE petitioner submitted his explanation but allegedly without considering it, the petitioner was suspended by the impugned order dated 12-2-1992 passed by respondent No. 1. Feeling aggrieved from the above, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. With the consent of the parties, the petition was heard and is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The first point that was argued before me was that the petitioner was suspended under section 95 (1) 'g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which relates to removal and not to suspension of a Pradhan and therefore the impugned order was illegal. He, however, conceded that the power of suspension is there under section 95 (1) (gg) of the Act. This argument is therefore of no force If the power of suspension is traceable to a provision under section 95 (1) (gg) of the Act such suspension cannot be said to be illegal only because it is wrongly mentioned in the order that the power has been exercised under section 95 (1) (g) of the Act. If source of power is traceable, exercise of such power cannot be set aside merely because it has been done under a different provision. In this case, the power to suspend a Pradhan is admittedly there under section 95 (1) (gg) of the Act. Accordingly the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal on the ground that in the suspension order the section has wrongly been mentioned as 95 (1) (g) instead of 95 (1) (gg) of the Act.
(3.) THE other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the report of the Engineer itself mentions that due to rains etc the correct valuation of the work done cannot be made. Accordingly, it was argued that the prima facie satisfaction of the respondent No. 1 was incorrect and was not based on any data available on record. Suspension under section 95 )'l) (gg) is passed during pendency of the proceedings for removal of the Pradhan under clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of section 95. As against such an order of suspension revision lies which, in my opinion, is also an efficacious remedy. Whether there was actual prima facie satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority or not .before passing the impugned order can more appropriately be decided by revisional court where whole record is available and both factual and legal controvercies are decided. In view of the fact that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing revision under the Act itself, there is no exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstance of the case, calling for interference in the matter without relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy of filing revision.;