The suspension of a Panch without a show cause notice and without considering the facts of the conviction is illegal and violates the principles of natural justice.

V. D. Misra, C.J. : The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Gram panchayat, Kungrath, Tehsil and District Una, in Nov.-Dec. 1978 after defeating Shri Tarsem Singh, respondent No. 5. Thereafter Tarsem Singh reported to the Deputy Commissioner as well as to the State Government that the petitioner has been convicted under S.16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 9th Sept. 1979 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. The Deputy Commissioner proceeded to suspend the petitioner by his order dated 9th Nov. 1979 (Annexure-A). Another notice was served on the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed under the provisions of S.9(5)(b) and (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 because of the aforementioned conviction (Annexure-B). The petitioner immediately asked the Deputy Commissioner to supply him with a copy of the complaint filed by Tarsem Singh. However, it was not done.

2. The petitioner moved the present petition challenging his suspension (Annexure-A) as well as the show cause notice (Annexure-B) served on him.

3. The State put in appearance on 4th March 1980. The Advocate General appeared for respondents Nos. 1 to

4. Mr. M.L. Sharma Advocate, appeared for respondent No.

5. By an order dated 10th March 1980 we directed that the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner be completed expeditiously and the final order be announced within two months. But nothing happened. 3-A. When the matter came up on 26th May 1980 for admission, the learned Advocate General submitted that he was ready to argue the whole petition as it was and in case we came to the conclusion that the petition be admitted then it should be straightway allowed. In these circumstances the matter was adjourned for today. We are proceeding to decide the petition as a whole after admission as desired by the parties.

4. We will first deal with the question of moral turpitude. We called upon the State to tell us the facts on the basis of which the petitioner was alleged to have been convicted under S.16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The record has been produced before us. The learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. M.L. Sharma frankly conceded that they know nothing of the facts on the basis of which the alleged conviction of the petitioner took place. There is nothing on record to show that the Deputy Commissioner or the State Government had before it the facts before they could form an opinion that the action for suspension under Section 54 of the Act or for removal under S.9(5)(b) and (c) of the Act should be initiated. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State is that since there is a conviction it ipso facto means that the petitioner has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude because it is under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. We cannot agree. Unless the facts are before us or were before the authorities concerned, nobody will be justified to presume that offence committed was one involving moral turpitude. After all, the cause of conviction under S.16(1) may be only technical. For example, a street vendor of lollipops who, in good faith, buys them from a wholesaler, but these turn out to be adulterated. Similar facts may not involve any moral turpitude. However, in the instant case the authorities concerned never cared to find out the facts. Obviously there has been no application of mind for forming the opinion. It could not be. There were no facts before the authorities.

5. Under Rule 77 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971 it is incumbent on the State Government as well as the Deputy Commissioner to give a show cause notice to the person sought to be suspended or removed, R.77 is in the following terms :- "Before ordering suspension or removal of a Panch, the State Government or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall give him an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be suspended or removed,