( 1 ) THE petitioner who was an exofficio member of Bardoli Taluka Panchayat by virtue of his office as Sarpanch of village Ten Gram Panchayat has challenged by this petition the order of suspension of January 13 1977 passed by respondent No. 1 and confirmed in appeal by respondent No. 2 under sec. 51 (1)of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961

( 2 ) NO affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

( 3 ) THE impugned order is challenged on the following grounds:-1 The order is void and ineffective since it is made by respondent No. 1 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to make his submissions in that behalf and therefore it is against the principles of natural justice and fair play. 2 The condition precedent for passing the order of suspension namely institution of criminal proceedings in respect of the offence involving moral turpitude or detention in prison during the trial for the offence under the provisions of any law for the time being in force is not satisfied and therefore the Competent Authority namely respondent No. 1 herein has no jurisdiction power or authority to make the impugned order. 3 In any case of the impugned order was not justified at all since in the complaint filed by Yaqub Saleh Hafiz which is the basis for the impugned order the name of the petitioner is not disclosed and therefore there was no evidence whatsoever on the basis of which the impugned order could have been made.

( 4 ) I am of the opinion that this petition should be allowed on the second and third contentions and it is therefore not necessary for me to go into the larger question whether any prior notice is required to be given before making the order of suspension since it involves some consequences to the persons suspended.

( 5 ) SEC. 51 (1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 (hereinafter called the said Act) empowers District Development Officer to suspend from the office of Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat or Chairman or Vice chairman of a Nagar Panchayat against whom any criminal proceedings in respect of an offence involving moral turpitude have been instituted. It is common ground that the impugned order has not been made on the ground of detention of the petitioner in prison during his trial since it is not clear whether the trial has taken place till today. What is an offence involving moral turpitude has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mr. P an Advocate AIR 1963 SC 1313 where a question arose as to when an Advocate can be said to be guilty of gross misconduct or negligence involving moral turpitude or delinquency. In that context Gajendagadakar J. speaking for the Court held as under:-"it may be that before condemning an Advocate for misconduct courts are inclined to examine the question as to whether such gross negligence involves moral turpitude or delinquency. In dealing with this aspect of the matter however it is of utmost importance to remember that the expression moral turpitude or delinquency is not to receive a narrow construction. Wherever conduct proved against an Advocate is contrary to honesty or opposed to good morals or is unethical it may be safely held that it involves moral turpitude. A wilful and callous disregard for the interests of the client may in a proper case be characterised as conduct unbefitting an Advocate Any conduct which makes a person unworthy to belong to the noble fraternity of lawyers or makes an advocate unfit to be entrusted with the responsible task of looking after the interests of the litigant must be regarded as conduct involving moral turpitude. . . "

( 6 ) IN Patel Bhogilal Mamordas v. The Development Commissioner of Gujarat State and Anr. (1976) 17 Guj. L. R. 724 an application was made to the District Development Officer against the Sarpanch of Zillavasha village in Chanasma taluka of Mehsana district to take action against him under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 51 of the said Act since criminal proceedings were instituted against the