1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashment of the notice dated 12.6.97 (Annexure P-7), the order of suspension dated 19.6.97 (Annexure P-9) and the confirmation thereof by order dated 2.9.97 (Annexure P-20) all actions taken under Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for such other ancillary reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to.

2. Sans unnecessary details the facts which are essential for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated thus :--

The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Bankhedi, Pipariya in the district of Hoshangabad in the election held in May 1994. The aforesaid Panchayat comprises of 20 elected members and a Sarpanch. As 10 out of the 20 elected Panchas of the Panchayat continuously absented themselves from the meetings of the Panchayat Committee, they incurred the disqualification to continue as office bearers of the Panchayat by virtue of the provisions envisaged under section 36 (2) (c) of the Act. This fact was brought to the notice of the Collector, Hoshangabad, the respondent No.2, by the petitioner by his letter dated 30.8.95. As the District Collector showed no inclination to take action in-spite of the timely information, the petitioner under compelling circumstances had to tap the doors of this Court in a writ petition No. 2129/96 seeking therein issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Collector to take a final decision in the matter of disqualification of the said elected members. This Court by order dated 26.6.96 issued a direction to the Collector, Hoshangabad to dispose of the matter relating to disqualification of the Panchas within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. Thereafter the Collector passed an order on 13.3.97 in Revenue Case No. 181-B/121/95-96 disqualifying the 9 Panchas and the Up-Sarpanch from being the office bearer of the Gram Panchayat. The defensibility of the said order was called in question by the aggrieved Panchas in an appeal under section 36 (4) of the Act before the Additional Commissioner, Hoshangabad who passed a conditional stay order in favour of the appellants therein. As the petitioner was the main initiator, the dissatisfied members in a collective manner engaged themselves in making false and frivolous complaints against the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pipariya, the respondent No.3. According to the petitioner the said SDO had an axe to grind against him as he (the SDO) wanted to do a favour to one Shri Ramvilas in regard to grant of permanent lease of some land situated near bus stand of Bankhedi but the said action of the SDO was not supported by the Gram Panchayat. This had irked the SDO, Pipariya who had borne it silent grudge against the petitioner. Therefore, after he received complaints against the petitioner, without making any preliminary inquiry with regard to correctness of the allegations, he issued a show cause notice dated 12.6.97 under section 40 of the Act along-with a charge-sheet. In the said show cause notice it was mentioned that Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bankhedi had submitted an inquiry report to the effect that on examination of records with reference to the complaints of the Panchas it was found there were irregularity in the functioning of the Village Panchayat and, therefore the petitioner was required to submit his reply to the show cause notice in promptitude. After receipt of the said show cause notice the petitioner submitted his reply on 17.6.97 denying the charges levelled against him and sought time to reply in detail to the charges as he was not equipped to file the detailed reply in absence of the documents, the complaints and the preliminary report. Without considering the preliminary reply submitted by the petitioner,