Lokur, J. - (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. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner, in the first place, that the order has been made at the behest of the Col lector and the Sub-Divisional Officer has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and hence the order is Inoperative. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, however, it has been brought out that the allegations made against the petitioner were initially en quired into by the Tahsildar and found to be correct, that the Sub-Divisional Officer looked into the report of the Tahsildar and, being satisfied that the petitioner had committed irregularities in granting leases to several persons, made a report to the Collector and thereupon the petitioner was suspended in public interest. A plain reading of the order of suspension passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer shows that it was under the Collector's orders that the petitioner was placed under suspen sion and not as a result of the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer himself. It may be that the Sub-Divisional Officer was convinced that the petitioner had committed irregularities in granting leases but the decision to suspend the petitioner was of the Collector and not of the Sub-Divisional Officer. This is clear from the order itself.
(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,;