JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is a Sarpanch. On 23rd August, 2001, she was served with a show cause notice. Three allegations were levelled against her. She was called upon to explain as to why she should not be placed under suspension. The petitioner submitted her reply. Vide order dated 2nd November, 2001, the Deputy Commissioner ordered her suspension. A copy of the order is at Annexure P3. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Department of Panchayat & Development vide order dated 9th January, 2002. A copy of the order is at Annexure P5. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The solitary contention raised by Shri Mehtani, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the explanation furnished by her has not been considered by the competent authority. 3. This contention cannot be accepted. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the plea raised by the petitioner has been duly considered. The Commissioner has particularly noticed each of the contentions and dealt with it. He has found that the evidence collected during the preliminary enquiry prima facie establishes the charges. It has been also found that the petitioner had made a statement totally contrary to the factual position and suppressed material facts. No document was produced by the petitioner to show that the proceedings under Section 24 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 had been initiated. The stay order granted by the Civil Court was of no avail as it had no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of Shamlat deh. The jurisdiction was clearly excluded by the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. 4. It is true that the authorities exercising powers under the Statute have to consider the explanations furnished by the persons. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the order of suspension is in its very nature passed during the course of a regular inquiry. A final expression of opinion on the charges levelled against the Sarpanch or a Panch may actually prejudice the interests of the party. Thus, the Authority has to merely consider the explanation and not express its opinion finally. In this case, we are satisfied that the explanation has been duly considered. 5. A final expression of opinion on the charges levelled against the Sarpanch or a Panch may actually prejudice the interests of the party. Thus, the Authority has to merely consider the explanation and not express its opinion finally. In this case, we are satisfied that the explanation has been duly considered. 5. No other point has been raised. 6. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.