JUDGMENT B.K. Singh, J. - The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Saspana in the last Gaon Sabha election held in the year 1988. The S.D.O. vide order dated June 4, 1992 has suspended him. The order is attached as Annexure2 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad. He also moved an application for stay of the operation of the sub Divisional Officer's orders. However, the Commissioner by order dated 30th July 1992 has rejected the petitioner's application for grant of interim relief. The revision is yet to be decided. It is against the order of the Commissioner that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. A perusal of the suspension order passed by Sub Divisional Officer makes it clear that he has found the petitioner guilty in enforcement of Jawahar Rojgar Yojna. According to the suspension order the petitioner in his capacity as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha has committed irregularity. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the whole proceedings including the order of the learned Commissioner that under section 95 of the Panchayat Raj Act the Pradhan can be suspended only if he has committed default in performance of his duties, prescribed under the said Act. The irregularity committed in Jawahar Rojgar Yojna, is not contemplated under section 95 (g) (iii) of the Act. As such it has been urged that the order passed by the Commissioner in rejecting the petitioner's application suffers from material error of law and it deserves to be quashed. The other point in the suspension order needs no comment at this stage. I am only confining on the irregularity of the order passed by the Commissioner. 2. For what has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and what I have stated above prima facie case in favour of the petitioner is made out. His application for stay, therefore, should not have been rejected by the Commissioner, It is also because lam of the view that where the order impugned results into civil consequences then grant of interim relief of stay is fully made out. 3. His application for stay, therefore, should not have been rejected by the Commissioner, It is also because lam of the view that where the order impugned results into civil consequences then grant of interim relief of stay is fully made out. 3. I, therefore, direct that during the pendency of the revision before the Commissioner the operation of the suspension order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer shall remain stayed and the learned Commissioner will dispose of the revision at an early date. 4. The petition is accordingly disposed of finally. No orders as to the costs. (Order accordingly.)