JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, Chhapkauli. He was also Manager of Nav Bharat High School, Chhapkauli. He had been a Pradhan for almost 15 years. He as Manager of the School terminated the services of Smt. Singh who was an employee of the school. Sant Singh was a nephew of one Dalip Singh who wielded political influence as he was a Swatantra Senany. The further allegation of the petitioner is that in view of the political influence, the petitioner had been removed from the office of Pradhan. The order which has been challenged in the present petition was passed by one Sri C.S. Pushkar, Sub-divisional Magistrate Hapur on 27th September, 1975. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioners counsel has raised three contentions before us. His first contention is that the impugned order dated 27th September, 1975 has been passed with a mala fide motive by Sri C.S. Pushkar, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hapur. The second contention of the learned counsel is that he was not afforded proper opportunity of show cause against the proposed action against him-and as such the order is bad in law. 3. The third contention of the learned counsel is that in any case the impugned order does not contain any reason whatsoever and as such also the order is bad in law. 4. It is not necessary to go into the first and second contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as in-our opinion the third contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. 5. Section 94 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 empowers the Sub-divisional Magistrate to remove a Pradhan on the ground mentioned in the said sub-clause. 5. Section 94 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 empowers the Sub-divisional Magistrate to remove a Pradhan on the ground mentioned in the said sub-clause. The action has been taken against the petitioner under sub-clause (g) (iii) which reads as fellows : - "(iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or rules made thereunder or his continues as such is net desirable in public interest, or" The proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 95 of the Act lays down no action shall be taken under clause (g) of Section 95 (1) except after giving to the body or person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed. The power, therefore, of the Sub-divisional Magistrate to remove a Pradhan is in the nature of a quasi judicial power and as such it is necessary that he should give reasons in this order passed against a person removing him from the office of Pradhan. 6. We have perused the impugned order dated 27-9-1975. In the ultimate paragraph the order states that the charges have been found proved against the petitioner neither evidence has been discussed for reasons have been given in the order as to why the authority concerned came to the conclusion that the charges have been found proved against the petitioner. Since there are no reasons in the impugned order, the impugned order is clearly void in law. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 27th September, 1975 is quashed. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the authority to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law after giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard if so desired. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.