JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioner, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Barswan, purportedly hence committed mis-appropriation, of, Panchayat funds. It is submitted by Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General, that, the competent authority, has directed, the initiation of, a, regular inquiry, against, the petitioner, vis-a-vis, the afore misconduct. 2. Through Annexure P-2, the competent authority, hence, ordered, for, suspension of the petitioner. The petitioner becoming aggrieved therefrom, preferred an appeal, thereagainst, before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, and, the afore appeal also became dismissed, and, thereagainst the aggrieved petitioner, has hence, filed the instant petition, before this Court. 3. The relevant provisions, of, Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act"), and, appertaining to "Suspension of office bearers of panchayats", are, encapsulated in sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, and, in the there underneath, occurring proviso, (i) proviso whereof, hence mandates, vis-a-vis, the enumerated penal offences, as, carried in subsection 1 (a) of Section 145 of the Act, the charged office bearers, of, the Panchayat concerned, holding no right to seek revocation of suspension, or, rather the order suspending them, holding force and surviving up to a decision, being made by the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction, vis-a-vis, the charges framed, qua, the offences delineated, in, sub-section (1) (a) of Section 145 of the Act. 145. 145. Suspension of office bearers of Panchayats.- (1) The prescribed authority may suspend from office any office bearer- (a) who remained in custody for more than fourteen days on a criminal charge or otherwise or against whom charges have been framed in any criminal proceedings under chapter V-A, VI, IX-A, X, XII, sections 302, 303, 304-B, 305, 306, 307, 312 to 318, 336-A, 366-B, 373 to 377 of Chapter XVI, sections 395 to 398, 408, 409, 420, 436, 458 to 460 of Chapter XVII and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) or under sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927) or under sub-section (1) of section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 or any law for the time being in force for the prevention of adulteration of food stuff and drugs, suppression of immoral traffic in women and children and protection of civil rights; or (b) who has been served with a notice alongwith a charge sheet to show cause under this Act, for his removal from the office; (c) where on a complaint made against him the preliminary enquiry prima-facie discloses the misappropriation, misutilization or embezzlement of Panchayat funds or he has been found guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties: Provided that any office bearer, if placed under suspension against whom charges have been framed in any criminal proceedings under clause (a), shall remain under suspension till the final decision of the competent court.] 4. However, it is fairly submitted by Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General that the afore mandate, is, un-attractable, vis-a-vis, the petitioner. Nonetheless, he submits that the order hence suspending the petitioner, was, necessitated, to, become made, as, it fell, within, the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the Act, (i) and, when within domains thereof, the apt satisfaction has become validly drawn hence by the competent authority, thereupon, the impugned orders becoming merit-worthy. Contrarily, readings thereof, unveil, qua the competent authorities becoming enjoined, to, in the relevant order, hence make earmarked highlightings, qua, hence the petitioner, becoming validly suspended, and, the afore highlightings, hence evidently surfacing, from, cogent evidence, where-from a genuine apprehension, becomes, sparked, vis-a-vis, hers tampering with the records, and, hers influencing the witnesses. 5. Contrarily, readings thereof, unveil, qua the competent authorities becoming enjoined, to, in the relevant order, hence make earmarked highlightings, qua, hence the petitioner, becoming validly suspended, and, the afore highlightings, hence evidently surfacing, from, cogent evidence, where-from a genuine apprehension, becomes, sparked, vis-a-vis, hers tampering with the records, and, hers influencing the witnesses. 5. Even though, the orders recorded by both the authorities below, unveil qua the capacity of the petitioner, to, tamper with the records, yet it appears that both the authorities below, in, making the afore conclusions, have slighted the fact, qua, the records of the Panchayat concerned, as, uncontrovertedly stated by the learned counsel, for, the petitioner, being not in possession of the petitioner herein, rather the same being in, the, possession of the Panchayat Secretary concerned. Moreover, since, the, misconduct, ascribed, vis-a-vis, the petitioner is wholly dependent, upon, documentary evidence, documents whereof, as, stated above, are in the possession of the Panchayat Secretary concerned, (i) thereupon, it appears that apprehensions reared, by both the authorities, that, there is every possibility, of, the petitioner tampering rather with the apt documentary evidence, and, hers influencing the witnesses, are, mis-maneuvered apprehensions, and, thereupon, they requires interference, being made, by this Court. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. The Inquiry Officer concerned, is, however directed, to, proceed, in accordance with the law against the petitioner.