JUDGMENT D.N. Jha, J. - This second writ petition has been preferred by Deo Sharan Misra against the order of suspension which was precisely the subject matter of dispute when he preferred Writ Petition No. 6062 of 1985. 2. Learned Counsel pointed out that the first petition was not dismissed through a speaking order and, therefore, second petition was maintainable. Without going into the question of my earlier order dated 20.11.1985 whether it was a speaking order or not I proceeded to hear the learned Counsel on this fresh petition presented by him. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the Notification contained in Annexure-6 empowering the Sub-Divisional Officer and revision thereof provided through the Commissioner was an excessive delegation. This notification is dated 14th October, 1976 and is notification No. 5681-B/XXXHI-2237-72. It may be mentioned that the State Government is vested with the power of delegation u/s 96A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the relevant section reads as under: The State Government may delegate all or any of its powers under this Act to any officer or authority subordinate to it subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may deem fit to impose." The underlined emphasis has been provided, 4. I find no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that provision in the notification that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of the power under Sub-section (gg) of Section 95 shall be revisable by the Commissioner of the Division and also by the State Government suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. The Pradhan is an elected Officer and, therefore, abundant caution has been taken by the State Government while delegating its power to the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is in order to check the reasonability of the order that it is provided that the order of suspension passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer shall be revisable by the Commissioner of the Division. This is covered within the phraseology ' subject to such conditions ' not only this it has also kept with it the power to revise the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner, therefore, in the notification as a matter of fact an excessive precaution has been taken by the State Government to see that the Pradhan who is elected officer is not arbitrarily suspended. The State Government has to look to the entire functioning of the State and, therefore, it cannot be said that the work to be discharged by the Government it light in any manner. The Legislature in its wisdom had provided for delegation of powers by the State Government and, therefore, the State Government could by notification delegate its powers within the ambit of the exercise of powers for purposes of passing the order for breach of any of the conditions provided in Section 95 of the Act. The notification in my opinion does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation as urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel next urged that the order of suspension was passed on 4th April, 1984 and till this date nothing has been done. He also pointed out that no preliminary enquiry had been made by the Sub-Divisional officer as is evident from the contents of Annexure-1. It is clear that in the suspension order it is not necessary to spell out every minute details but it is clear from the reading of the suspension order that the S.D.O. while on tour in the area learnt about the malpractices of the Pradhan in usurping the land of the Gaon Sabha by illegally being in possession of the same in the name of an institution This order was challenged through a revision and it must be said that the learned Commissioner, Lucknow Division has very exhaustively dealt with every aspect of challenge made to the suspension order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. After carefully going through the order passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division contained in Annexure-2 there is no reason in my mind to hold that the Petitioner has been unduly dealt with by being put under suspension. I, therefore, do not think that the impugned order calls for any interference. 6. The economic policies are being enunciated by the State Government from time to time in order to provide land to the landless persons and in the welfare of the State it is also to provide land to the backward classes. I, therefore, do not think that the impugned order calls for any interference. 6. The economic policies are being enunciated by the State Government from time to time in order to provide land to the landless persons and in the welfare of the State it is also to provide land to the backward classes. If any authority or person abuses his power to frustrate the economic policies enunciated by the State Government the matter calls for no leniency, but on the other hand the executive authorities ought to deal with such persons as severely as possible because they are providing hindrance in securing a welfare State and all efforts should be made to see that the directive principles enunciated in the Constitution are properly brought into effect. 7. Lastly it was urged that more than one year has passed that the Pradhan has been under suspension. In my opinion it is the own doing of the Piadhan that he is running door to door in order to see that the charge-sheet is not submitted on him. In the circumstances I do not think that the suspension order amounts to punishment. It is. however, expected that the Tahsildar will furnish the charge-sheet to the Petitioner as early as possible say within one month and will complete the enquiry within a period of three months thereafter, provided the Petitioner co-operates. In case the Petitioner adopts dilatory tactics it will be open to the Enquiry Officer and other competent authorities to deal with the matter in accordance with law. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion I see no merits in this 'petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order is made as to costs.