Shantanu Kemkar, J. 1. The petitioner was declared elected on the post of President, District Panchayat, Barwani. On account of framing of charges against him under sections 376(2) (g), along with other sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Commissioner, Indore Division passed an order on 6.1.2011, suspending him from the office of President, District Panchayat, Barwani by invoking powers under section 39 (1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ‘Adhiniyam 1993’). The said order of suspension dated 6.1.2011 was reported to the State Government as per the requirement of section 39 (2) of the Adhiniyam 1993, and the State Government, vide order dated 7.2.2011, confirmed the said suspension order dated 6.1.2011.

2. Thereafter, the trial of the charges framed against the petitioner for the offences as aforesaid, was conducted by the Special Judge, District Barwani in which, the petitioner was acquitted, vide judgment dated 28.2.2011 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 15/2010.

3. On his acquittal, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Commissioner, Indore Division seeking revocation of his suspension order dated 6.1.2011. However, before any decision could be taken by the Commissioner on the said representation, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 3193/2011 before this Court, challenging the suspension order dated 6.1.2011. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 17.10.2011, allowed the said writ petition by observing that since the petitioner has been acquitted, vide judgment dated 28.2.2011, the impugned order of suspension dated 6.1.2011 stands revoked. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.

4. The said order dated 17.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the State Government as also by the private respondent in Writ Appeal Nos. 592/2011 and 584/2011, respectively. On 10.11.2011, interim relief was granted by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 592/2011 staying the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, both the writ appeals were disposed of by the Division Bench by common order dated 7.12.2011. The Division Bench set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the Divisional Commissioner to examine the petitioner’s prayer for revocation of his suspension order keeping in view the order of acquittal, the effect of admission of criminal appeal against the said judgment of acquittal and the provision of Adhiniyam, 1993. The Division Bench also directed that the interim order passed by it on 10.11.2011 shall remain operative till the matter is finally decided by the Commissioner.

5. In pursuance to the order passed by the Division Bench on 7.12.2011, the Commissioner considered the petitioner’s prayer for revocation of the order of suspension dated 6.1.2011 and vide impugned order dated 10.1.2012 (Annexure P-11) rejected the said prayer for revocation of suspension on the ground that against the judgment of acquittal the criminal appeal filed by the State has been admitted. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.1.2012 passed by the Commissioner, the petitioner has filed this petition. The Hon’ble Chief Justice, vide administrative order dated 17.8.2012 directed for listing the matter for hearing before the Division Bench.

6. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner having been acquitted for the charges levelled against him, the Commissioner should have revoked the suspension order, which was issued in view of the provision contained in section 39(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of R.N. Gupta and another vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, 1996 MPLJ 507 and in the case of M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Save, 2009(1)MPWN 2=2008(4) MPLJ 235