JUDGMENT M.P. Singh 1. Section 95 of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (herein-after referred to as the Act) keeps a control over the functioning of the Pradhan, who is an elected person. SECTION 95 (1) (g) empowers the Sub- Divisional Officer to remove him if ;- (i) he absents himself without sufficient cause from more than three consecutive meetings or sittings, (ii) he 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) he 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, (iv) he being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in politics, (v) he surfers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause (a) to (m) of section 5-A of the Act 2. By Amending Act 3 of 1973 one more sub-section (gg) was added to this section. Section 95 (1) (gg) of the Act reads as follows : "suspend a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or a Member of a Gaon Panchayat or Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or a Panch, Sahayak Sar- Panch or Sarpanch or 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, if pending : Provided that an order of suspansion under this clause shall not affect the right, if any, of the Pradhan or the Up Pradhan as the case may be, to take part in the proceedings of a meeting convened under section 14 and to vote at such meeting." 3. Under this provision, an order of suspension can be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer against a person, against whom proceedings under section 95 (1) (g) of the Act are pending or contemplated. 4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13-8-1990 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 95 (1) (g) removing him from the office of Pradhan. SHORT FACTS The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Sonda, Pergana Jalalabad, Tehsil Modinagar, district Ghaziabad in the year 1982. Thereafter, he was again re-elected in the year 1988. 5. SHORT FACTS The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Sonda, Pergana Jalalabad, Tehsil Modinagar, district Ghaziabad in the year 1982. Thereafter, he was again re-elected in the year 1988. 5. On 12th October, 1989 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It was based on a report of the Tehsildar dated 10-10-1989. It was stated that the petitioner's brother, Tejveer Singh has encroached upon plot no. 532 belonging to the Gaon Sabha. Proceedings under section 122-B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, were initiated against him, and an order of ejectment was passed. Then he filed a civil suit, in which an order of injunction was passed against the defendants restraining them from evicting him. Thus, Tejveer Singh continued in possession. 6. The petitioner submitted his reply on 15-10-1989 stating that he has never mis-used his power. Tejveer Singh is living separately from his family. On the other band, it was pointed out that the proceedings under section 122- B of UP ZA LR Act were initiated on his complaint. The statement of the Lekhpal was also recorded, according to which Tejveer Singh came in possession in the year 1981 whereas the petitioner was elected as Pradhan in the year 1982. At the time when he occupied the land, the petitioner was not even in office. The Sub Divisinal Officer passed an order of suspension on 9-3-1990 under section 95 (1) (gg) of the Act. The Tehsildar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. 7. The said order of suspension dated 9-3-1990 was challenged by the petitioner in revision. On 27-3-1990 the learned Commissioner stayed the operation of the order of suspension. The stay order dated 27-3-19!>0 is still in operation, but it has been made clear by the learned Commissioner that the enquiry shall go on. 8. The Tehsildar submitted his enquiry report on 2-7-1990. Relying upon this report, the impugned order of removal was passed under section 95 (1) (g) of the Act on 13-8-1990. Against the order dated 13-8-1990, the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner. The appeal is still pending. 9. In paragraph no. 8. The Tehsildar submitted his enquiry report on 2-7-1990. Relying upon this report, the impugned order of removal was passed under section 95 (1) (g) of the Act on 13-8-1990. Against the order dated 13-8-1990, the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner. The appeal is still pending. 9. In paragraph no. 2 of the writ petition it has been stated that the appellate authority has told the petitioner that on account of political pressure from Sri Raj Pal Tyagi MLA it will not be possible to decide the appeal or dispose of the stay matter. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this court. 10. Normally, when a person is pursuing an alternative remedy, he is not permitted to invoke writ jurisdiction of this court, but in the instant case on account of extraordinary situation mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the petition is being entertained. Ishwar Chand and Babli alias Naresh have moved an application for impleadment in this petition as respondents. The said application was allowed by me. They have also filed a counter-affidavit contesting the writ petition. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing counsel, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. 12. The first submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that since there was stay order from the revisional court, it was not proper for the Sub-Divisional Officer to proceed further and to pass an order under section 95 (1) (g) of the Act removing the petitioner from the office. The submission has got no force. The learned Commissioner has only stayed the operation of the suspension order, but has permitted the enquiry to proceed. The intention, it appears, was that the Sub-Divisional Officer may pass fresh order under section 95 (1) (g) of the Act in case he was satisfied that there was a case against the petitioner. 13. The next submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned order is a quasi-judicial order and as such it should have been passed by giving reasons and discussion of the material on record the argument has force. 14. 13. The next submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned order is a quasi-judicial order and as such it should have been passed by giving reasons and discussion of the material on record the argument has force. 14. In the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order which is the only discussion on the merit of the case, only this much has been stated that he has looked into the report of the Tehsildar dated 2-7-1990 and in the next line he says that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. On this basis, he passed an order removing the petitioner under section 95 (1) (g) of the Act. The impugned order cannot be said to be a speaking order passed on reasons. It has to discuss the evidence on record and give his own reasons. It is immaterial whether the reasons are sound or wrong. If reasons are there, the order will fulfil the attributes of a speaking order. Such order need not be long or exhaustive. The gravity will not deprive it of trie attributes of the speaking order so long it gives the reasons. In the instant case on account of basic omission of discussing the evidence and reasons, the order becomes bad in law. 15. In a case reported in Sri Har Saran Das Dhilian v. S.D.M., Hapur, Meerut, 1982 UP LB EC 116, a Division Bench ofa this court had an occasion to consider the scope of section 95 (1) (g) of the Act. In that case also without discussing the evidence and giving the reasons, order under section 95 (1) (g) was passed. The court set aside the order on the ground that since the impugned order was without reasons, it was void in law. 16. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13-8-1990 passed under section 95 (l) (g) is quashed. Petition allowed.