The State Government or its officers cannot suspend an Asaldar Patwari from the office of Asaldar Patwari for irregularities committed as Gumastha Patwari in the absence of any law or statutory rule empowering them to do so.

( 1 ) IN Writ Petition No. 3937/73, the petitioner seeks for the quashing of the orders dated 17-8-1972 of the tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk, Hyderabad District, suspending him from functioning as Gumastha Patwari of You sufguda Village and Asaldar Patwari of yellareddyguda village, on the ground that he has tampered with the entries in the village Pahanis of 1966-67 to 1969-70;. Writ petition No. 310/74 is preferred by the same petitioner for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk, dated 10-8-1973 suspending him from the offices of Gumastha Patwari, Malipa- tel and Police Patel of Babbuguda and guctala Begumpet villages as illegal, without jurisdiction and void.

( 2 ) THE Petitioier is Asaldar Patwari of Yellareddyguda village. He was also appointed by the Asaldar Patwari of Yousufguda village by name Narhar rao, the 4th respondent in - W. P. No. 3937/72 as Gumastha Patwari of Yousufguda in the year 1966 and he was again reappointed in the year 1971. According to the petitioner, he made certain entries in the cultivation accounts of Yousufguda village pertaining to the years 1966 to 1970 at the instance of the asaldar Patwari (4th respondent ). But according to the State Government, those entries are not true but fraudulent and hence, he was suspended on 17-8-1972 by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad urban Taluk, from the office of Gumastha Patwari, Yousufguda. Consequently, he was suspended from the office held by him as Asaldar Patwari of Yellareddy guda village by the impugned order. The Petitioner s appeal to the Board of revenue againsr the orders of suspension made by the Tahsildar and against the orders of the Revenue Divisiona! officer, hyderabad West was rejected on 23-4-1973. The Board of Revenue has rejected the claim of the petitioner even to continue as Asaldar Patwari of Yellareddyguda village on the strength of para 19 of Dastur-e-Dehi. On the basis of the orders passed by the Board of revenue, the petitioner was suspended by an order passed by the Tahsildar, hyderabad West Taluk on 10-8-1973, from the offices of Gumastha Patwari, malipatel and Police Patel of Babbuguda and Guttala Begumpet villages. The basis for the aforesaid order appears to be the suspension order passed earlier in respect of Yousufguda village for the alleged falsification of cultivation accounts of Yousufguda in the years 1966 to 1970. That order is sought to be quashed by the petitioner in Writ petition No. 310 of 1974.

( 3 ) MR. C. R. Pratapa Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the right of his client to hold the office of Asaldar Patwari of Yellareddyguca is a right to property and the government cannot deprive him of his property right except in accordance with law, that there is no law empowering rhe government to deprive the petitioner of his property right viz watan in respect of Yellareddyguda as there are nr rules promulgated under Art. 309 of the Constitution or any other law which governs the rights of the village officers in so far as Telangana area is concc ned, that dasturi-e-Dehi is not law and that the action of the respondents in suspending him from the office of Asaldar Patwari of Yellareddyguda is without jurisdiction and illegal. He urged that the respondents have no power or authority to suspend the petitioner even for the alleged wrong entries in the cultivation accounts of yousufguda as the same have been done at the instance of the Asaldar Patwari and it is the Asaldar Patwari that is competent to suspend or remove the gumastha Patwari and in any event, the respondents have no right and power to suspend the petitioner in so far as the office held by him in Yellareddyguda, babbugudaand Guttala Begumpet are concerned, as he did not commit any mistake in his functioning as the village officer of those villages. In other words, it is contended by him that the petitioner cannot be punished or suspended from functioning as the vil