S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) A short but interesting question of law as regards the interpretation of Sec. 249 (1) vis-a-vis Section 143 of the A. P. Panchayat raj Act (for short the Act ) arises for consideration in this application. ( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-appellant was elected as Sarpanch, Kodada Gram Panchayat in nalgonda District on 22-10-1995 and his term expired on 23-10-2000 The State in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 143 (3) of the Act took a policy decision to appoint Sarpanchas as persons in-charge. Such power was delegated to the collector by reason of G. O. Ms. No. 113, panchayat Raj Department, dated 4-3-1996. The petitioner together with four persons were appointed as persons in-charge. While he was so acting in-charge, several charges were framed against him and by reason of the proceedings No. 402/2001/a/ panchayat, dated 18-6-2001 he was purported to have been removed from the said office in terms of Section 249 (1) of the act. ( 4 ) THE petitioner questioned the second show-cause notice dated 18-6-2000 in the writ petition. ( 5 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge as also before us, a question was raised as to whether in a situation of this nature, the provisions of Section 249 (1) of the Act are attracted. ( 6 ) THE learned Signle Judge inter alia held that for the purpose of the said Act, the appellant is to be treated as Sarpanch as having regard to the principles of General clauses Act, the power to appoint includes the power to remove, the impugned order does not therefore suffer from any illegality or infirmity. ( 7 ) MR. Ramachandra Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the holder of a public office only can be removed in terms of section 249 (1) of the Act. A Sarpanch can be removed upon following the procedure laid down under Section 249 (1), but such power cannot be exercised for the purpose of removal of a person in-charge, as any person can be appointed in the said post. ( 8 ) MR. A Sarpanch can be removed upon following the procedure laid down under Section 249 (1), but such power cannot be exercised for the purpose of removal of a person in-charge, as any person can be appointed in the said post. ( 8 ) MR. Ramesh Ranganathan, learned additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents on the other hand would submit that having regard to the provision of Section 12 of the General Clauses Act, power to remove is included in the power to appoint. According to the learned counsel, wrong mentioning of the provision of law would not invalidate an order which is otherwise valid. ( 9 ) IN support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of the apex Court in State of Sikkim v. Dorjee tsheering Bhutia1. ( 10 ) BY reason of the proceedings dated 20-10-2000, the petitioner was appointed as person in-charge by the District Collector. He therefore at the relevant point of time could not have been treated to be a sarpanch. ( 11 ) A Sarpanch is holder of a public office which is filled by reason of election. He therefore cannot be removed in terms of the provisions of Section 249 of the Act. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, the same does not-mean that only because a person has been appointed as person in-charge, he can under no circumstances be removed. As the appellant was appointed as person in- charge by the Collector, he can be removed by the Collector. A person in-charge has no legal right to continue in the said post. ( 13 ) IT is now a well settled principle of law that non-mentioning or a wrong mentioning of a provision of law would be irrelevant if source for exercising its jurisdiction by the Statutory Authority is available. ( 14 ) IN State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Tsheering bhutia1, it was held:. The fact that the State Government, purported to act under Rule 4 (3) of the rules in issuing the impugned notification is of no consequence. When the source of power can be validly traced then the State action in the exercise of such power cannot be struck down on the ground that it was labelled under a different provision. ( 15 ) IN State of Karnataka v. Krishnaji srinivas Kulkarn the Apex Court held:. . . . . . When the source of power can be validly traced then the State action in the exercise of such power cannot be struck down on the ground that it was labelled under a different provision. ( 15 ) IN State of Karnataka v. Krishnaji srinivas Kulkarn the Apex Court held:. . . . . . Quotation of a wrong provision does not take away the jurisdiction of the authorities to inquire under section 79-B (3) of the Act. The tribunals therefore, had jurisdiction to inquire into and publish the declaration as enjoined under section 79-B (3) of the Act. The demised 600 acres of land held by the company stood vested in the State free of encumbrances. ( 16 ) IN Pine Chemicals Ltd. vs. Assessing authority, the Apex Court opined: in our view this appeal cannot be shut out on the preliminary ground that no appeal was preferred against the two earlier decisions of the High Court which were followed in the instant case. It is for the Court to decide whether to entertain an appeal or not. In our view, the point of law raised in this case is of general public importance and this appeal cannot be dismissed in limine on the preliminary issue of maintainability. On behalf of the appellant, it has been pointed out that in the High Court itself, there has been a change in the perception of law in this regard. ( 17 ) IN the instant case however by reason of the provisions of Section 249 of the panchayat Raj Act, if a Sarpanch is removed from his office, he stands disqualified to contest the election. Such a consequence is not provided for in a case where General clauses Act would be attracted. ( 18 ) THE procedure which is applicable in such a case must be followed for the purpose of removal of holder of a post and not the procedure which would not only remove from his office, but also entail other penal consequences. Section 249 was enacted with a purpose. So long as a person holds a public office, he is holder of trust. Section 249 was enacted with a purpose. So long as a person holds a public office, he is holder of trust. Section 249 is a special provision in terms whereof when a Sarpanch is removed from his post, he is disqualified to contest the election, which would not be the same case if a person in-charge is removed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act coupled with the provisions of the General Clauses Act. ( 19 ) IN this situation, we are therefore of the opinion that for the purpose of removal of the appellant from the office of the person in-charge, the procedure laid down under Section 249 of the Act could not have been invoked and the procedure for the purpose can be invoked only in terms of General Clauses Act read with section 143 (3) of the Panchayat Raj Act. The order of removal must be held to have been issued under Section 143 (1) of the Act. Thus the appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. No costs.