JUDGMENT : 1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. 2. In this matter, an impleadment application has been filed by the applicant (who is complainant in this case and on whose complaint, the petitioner has been suspended). The impleadment application is allowed to the extent that the applicant shall also be heard. 3. Petitioner is an elected “Gram Pradhan” of Gram Panchayat, Raghunathpur @ Balawali, Tehsil Laksar, District-Haridwar. He is aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2017 by which he has been suspended from the post of Gram Pradhan. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon sub-section (4) of Section 138 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and would argue that under sub-section (4) of Section 138 read with its proviso an elected “Gram Pradhan” cannot be suspended unless such a person has been given an opportunity of making his representation. Section 138 of the Act reads as under:- “138. Section 138 of the Act reads as under:- “138. Separation from their posts to the officers of the three tiers panchayat- (1) The State Government may remove a member of the Panchayats on any of the following grounds- (a) that he has acted as a member of the Gram Panchayat, Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat or member of any committee by voting or taking part in the discussion of any matter in which he has directly or indirectly, a personal interest or in which he is professionally interested on behalf of a client, principal or other person; (b) that he has become physically or mentally incapacitated for performing his duties as such member, Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Pramukh, Up pramukh, Chairman, Up Chairman; (c) that he has been guilty, whether in his present or an earlier term of office, of misconduct in the discharge of his duty as such member, Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Pramukh, Up pramukh, Chairman, Vice chairman or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or caused loss or damage to the fund or property of the State Government or Panchayats and such misconduct, contraventions or causing of loss or damage renders due to conduct of work as unauthorized in place by women representative, her husband or family members or relatives, such women shall be ineligible as member, Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Pramukh, Up pramukh, Chairman, Vice chairman in such case they may be suspended up to the departmental final enquiry and their work and duties may be hand over to a committee of three elected members of the concerning Panchayat. In addition to the disciplinary action also may be taken against the departmental employees/officer, if found guilty in the enquiry. (2) Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, where a member specified in any member, Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Pramukh, Up Pramukh, Chairman and Vice chairman in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 29 is removed from membership under this section he shall with effect from the date of publication of notification of removal under section (c), cease to hold the office of respectively member, Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Pramukh, Up Pramukh, Chairman and Vice chairman and a vacancy shall be deemed to have been created in that office. (3) A person who has been removed from membership of the Panchayat under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be disqualified for being chosen a member of the Panchayat and being elected a member, Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Pramukh, Up Pramukh, Chairman, Up chairman of a Panchayats for a period of five years from the date of his removal: Provided that the State Government may, at any time by order, remove the disqualification. (4) Suspension-(a) If after the preliminary enquiry, the Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Pramukh, Up pramukh, Chairman, Vice chairman found guilty in prima facie then till the final enquiry, the State Government may be suspended to him. (b) If it is proved that the meeting of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat is convened in the house of Pradhan/Up Pradhan then after enquiry against the concerning person, the State Government may be suspended to him; Provided that shall not pass any order adversely affecting a person by the State Government/designated authority unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation.” 5. Petitioner was elected as “Gram Pradhan” in the year 2016. Thereafter, there were certain complaints against him, on which a preliminary inquiry has been done. Subsequent to the preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was suspended from the post of “Gram Pradhan” by the District Magistrate vide order dated 14.11.2017. This order is presently being challenged by the petitioner before this Court by means of the present writ petition. 6. In this matter counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. 7. The case of the petitioner is that, as of now the situation is that the petitioner who is the elected “Gram Pradhan” has been suspended on the basis of the findings of the preliminary enquiry. The enquiry has not been completed. 8. Learned State Counsel has made an oral submission before this Court that as of now, the final inquiry has been completed but no consequent orders have been passed therein. Learned counsel for the complainant Sri Pradeep Kumar Chauhan is also heard. 9. The petitioner, in effect remains suspended from 14.11.2017. The entire case of the petitioner rests on an interpretation of sub-section (4) read with its proviso. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant Sri Pradeep Kumar Chauhan is also heard. 9. The petitioner, in effect remains suspended from 14.11.2017. The entire case of the petitioner rests on an interpretation of sub-section (4) read with its proviso. 10. A bare perusal of the above proviso would show that the proviso clearly stipulates that no order adversely affecting the “Gram Pradhan” can be passed unless he has been given an opportunity to make his representation. The order suspending an elected “Gram Pradhan” is definitely an order which is adverse to the elected Gram Pradhan. He may or may not be removed depending upon the findings of the final enquiry which has presently not reached any conclusion. Meanwhile, an order adverse to the petitioner who is the elected “Gram Pradhan” has been passed without considering his representation. 11. Admittedly, this order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which was mandatory as per proviso to sub section (4) of Section 138 of the Act. The said proviso is also based on general principles of natural justice and fair play. However, in this case, there is no compliance of proviso to sub section (4) of Section 138 of the Act as well as the principles of natural justice and fair play. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 14.11.2017 is hereby quashed. 13. However, it is made clear that this order itself will not debar the State Government from proceeding further with the final enquiry which is going on. Further, if any action is taken against the petitioner, it shall be taken in accordance with Section 138 of the Act and under principles of natural justice and fair play.