P.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the Petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, who is an elected Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Dayanatpur, Tehsil Hathras, District Aligarh, has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the suspension order dated 5 -2 -1992 (Annexure '15' to the writ petition and the order dated 17 -2 -1992 (Annexure '24') passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra.
(2.) THE Petitioner was elected Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Dayanatpur Tehsil Hathras, District Aligarh in the year 1988. There were serious complaint of mal practice and mismanagement of the Gaon Sabha property against the Petitioner A show cause notice was, therefore, given to the Petitioner by the S.D.M. Hathras, District Aligarh on 8 -1 -1992. The Petitioner, however did not submit any reply to this notice Ultimately, by the impugned Order dated 5 -2 -1992 (Annexure '15') the S.D.M., Hathras, District Aligarh, respondent No. 1, suspended the Petitioner. Being aggrieved the Petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, respondent No. 2. Along with the revision, an application for staying the order dated 5 -2 -1991. passed by respondent No. 1, was also moved After having heard the parties, the learned Commissioner rejected the said application on 17 -2 -1991 Annexure '21'. Feeling aggrieved from the orders dated 5 -2 -1992, passed by respondent No. 1, and dated 17 -2 -1992, passed by respondent No. 2 the Petitioner has come up in a writ petition before this Court. With the consent of the parties, the petition was heard finally at the stage of admission.
(3.) THE first submission made on behalf of the Petitioner was that no show cause notice was ever served on him. Accordingly, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that since he has not afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order by respondent No. 1, the impugned order dated 5 -2 -1991 was illegal and without jurisdiction. It was now settled that in such cases of suspension of Pradhans, no opportunity of hearing need be given to them. Unlike under Clause (g) there is no parallel provision Under Section 95(1)(gg) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act to give an opportunity of hearing before passing the suspension order against a Pradhan This view has been taken in an earlier case of Salig Ram v. Collector, 1985 ALJ 1267, and recently also in the case of Gopi Singh v. State of U.P., 1991 ALJ 85, Thus, I find no force in the argument that since no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner, the impugned order dated 5 -2 -1992, passed by Respondent not was bad in law. Since, under the law, no opportunity of hearing is needed, the impugned order does not vitiate on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order.;