JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.8.90 for suspension of the petitioner from the office of the Pradhan, Gaon Sabha Ambapara, Ismailpur, District Unnao. As this writ petition involves a pure question of law on which counsel of the parties have been heard, it is being finally disposed of. 2. In this ease the impugned order of suspension dated 2.8.90 was passed against the petitioner by the S.D.M, Safipur, District Unnao. The petitioner happened to be the elected Pradhan of the Gaoa Sabha Ismailpur Ambapara. 3. The suspension order makes out that the alleged ground for suspension of the petitioner was that he was committing financial irregularities and secondly, he was abusing the office of the Gaon Pradhan. The only provision of law referred to and relied upon for suspending a Gaon Pradhan is Section 95(1) clauses (g), (gg) and proviso to clause (h) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. They are reproduced below: 95. The only provision of law referred to and relied upon for suspending a Gaon Pradhan is Section 95(1) clauses (g), (gg) and proviso to clause (h) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. They are reproduced below: 95. (1) The State Government may (g) remove a member of a Gaon Panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, an officebearer of a Gaon Sabha or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if he (i) absents himself without sufficient cause from more than three consecutive meetings or sittings, (ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude, (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 continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or (iv) being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in politics, or (v) suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (mi) of Section 5A; (gg) suspend a Pradhan or UpPradhan or member of a Gaoa Panchayat or Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or a panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat against whom proceedings under clause (g) are pending or contemplated or against whom prosecution for an offence, which in the opinion of the State Government involves moral turpitude, is pending: Provided that an order of suspension under this clause shall not affect the right, if any, of the Pradhan or the Uppradhan, as the case may be, to take part in the proceedings of a meeting convened under Section 14 and to vote at such meeting; (h) remove a person, if, having been elected as a Pradhan, he does not possess the qualifications specified in Section 5B: Provided that (i) no action shall be taken under clause (f), clause (g) or clause (h) except after giving to the body or person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed; (ii) no action shall be taken under clause (gg) on the ground that proceedings under clause (g) are pending on contemplated unless the State Government is prima facie satisfied that the grounds on which action is proposed under that clause exist, 4. It is clear that Section 95(1)(gg) provides that order of suspension against a Pradhan can be passed if the proceedings against him under clause (g) are pending or contemplated or against whom prosecution for an offence is pending which involves moral turpitude in the opinion of the State. 5. In the instant case it is not the case of the opposite parties that any prosecution is pending against the petitioner. The suspension order no doubt makes out that enquiry has been ordered against him, inasmuch as an Enquiry Officer has been appointed for drawing proceedings against the petitioner. 6. The provisions of subsection (gg) clearly make out that the 'proceedings pending or contemplated' must be of the nature envisaged under clause (g). In the instant case no doubt the proceedings which seem to be pending against the petitioner, are in respect of the alleged abuse of the office of Gaon Pradhan as well as commission of financial irregularities, so they may be said to falling under clause (g). But this is not the end of the matter Something more is required to be done before suspension of Gaon Pradhan be resorted or ordered. That requirement is laid in second proviso below clause (h) of Section 95(1). The second proviso lays down that no action of suspension under clause (gg) can be taken on the ground that proceedings under clause (g) are pending or contemplated 'unless the State Government is prima facie satisfied that the grounds on which the action is proposed, exist'. In other words, 'prima facie satisfaction of the State Government' is one of the conditions precedent for suspending a Gaon Pradhan under clause (gg). His suspension is not possible merely on the ground the proceedings under clause (g) are pending or contemplated. There seems to be an underlying reason for providing a check in the hands of the State Government when it comes to suspend a Pradhan. Gaon Pradhan is an elected person, hence giving free hand to a local head like SubDivisional Magistrate to suspend him at his will, would have not been in consonance with the object and spirit of our democratic set up and constitution. Gaon Pradhan is an elected person, hence giving free hand to a local head like SubDivisional Magistrate to suspend him at his will, would have not been in consonance with the object and spirit of our democratic set up and constitution. Neither there is anything on the record, nor it has been asserted before me that the condition of prima facie satisfaction of the State Government as to grounds on which the action was proposed, was fulfilled with the result that the order of suspension dated 2890 against the petitioner from the office of Gaon Pradhan cannot be held to be a legal order. The order cannot be sustained as a valid order. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of suspension dated 2890 is quashed and the mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to let the petitioner continue as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. However, it will be open to the concerned authorities to pass another order of suspension which should be in accordance with law if they want to suspend the petitioner from the office of Gaon Pradhan. 8. A copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges, within three days.