( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The petitioner was elected as a Surpanch of the Nellipudi Gram Panchayat and he was suspended by the first respondent through proceedings dated 2-1-2004. As per Rule 42 framed vide G. O. Ms. No. 30 PR. RD dated 20-1-1995, the District Panchayat Raj Panchayat Officer concerned may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit by an order any executive authority from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat till such period as may be specified in such order. Provided no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the executive authority concerned. It also provides that any executive authority aggrieved by an order passed by the District Panchayat Officer concerned under Sub Rule (1), may prefer an appeal in writing to the District Collector concerned within seven days of the receipt of the order and the decision of the District Collector thereon shall be final. ( 2 ) AN amendment was carried to Rule 40 by G. O. Ms. No. 137 PR. RD and R (PT. II) dated 22-3-1996 to the effect that all orders or cheques against the Gram Panchayat Fund shall be signed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. ( 3 ) IT is now well settled that when an appeal is provided to higher authority against the order of the lower authority and the higher authority passes an order exercising the powers of the lower authority the person against whom the order passed is deprived of the remedy of appeal, which is a substantive right given to the party and the said right cannot be deprived of. I am also fortified with the above view, as per the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in SURJIT GHOSH Vs. CHAIRMAN and M. D. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK ( AIR 1995 SC 1053 ), wherein the Apex Court held as follows: ( 4 ) IT is true that when an authority higher than the disciplinary authority itself imposes the punishment, the order of punishment suffers from no illegality when no appeal is provided to such authority. CHAIRMAN and M. D. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK ( AIR 1995 SC 1053 ), wherein the Apex Court held as follows: ( 4 ) IT is true that when an authority higher than the disciplinary authority itself imposes the punishment, the order of punishment suffers from no illegality when no appeal is provided to such authority. However, when an appeal is provided to the higher authority concerned against the order of the disciplinary authority or of a lower authority and the higher authority passes an order of punishment, the employee concerned is deprived of the remedy of appeal which is a substantive right to him by the rules/regulations. ( 5 ) IN view of the same the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly the same is set aside. However, this order will not preclude the competent authority from passing appropriate orders in accordance with law if situation so warrants. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed. No costs.