8. I also find force in the contention of Mr. Piara Singh Mann to the effect that the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, could not review the order of his predecessor in office filing away the papers on the ground that the order of the previous Deputy Commissioner was not correct and based on a misapprehension or alleged misrepresentation. It has already been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Deep Chand v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and another, 1964 Cur. LJ (Pb.) 128 : 1964 PLR 318 that a quasi judicial Tribunal does not have any inherent powers of review. this question has, in fact, been settled by the Supreme Court also. However wrong might have been the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner, the second Respondent had no jurisdiction to review the same as no such authority has been conferred on him by any of the provisions of the Act. Mr. Manmohan Singh, the learned counsel for the State, has relied on Section 19 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, which is in the following terms :- "19. "Where, by any Punjab Act, a power to issue notifications or make orders, rules or by-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued or made." His argument is that the Deputy Commissioner who made the earlier order had the authority by operation of Section 19 supra, to amend, vary or rescind the said orders. I do not think that the expression "orders" in Section 19 of the Punjab General Clauses Act is intended to cover quasi-judicial orders passed by statutory Tribunals in matters like the one with which we are concerned. The word "orders" in Section 19 has to be construed by keeping in view the other expressions in whose company it occurs. The other expressions are "notifications, rules and bye-laws". "Orders" in that context appears to relate to statutory orders like the Sugar Control Order or the Coal Control Order, etc., which may be issued by any authority in exercise of powers conferred on it by an enactment of the State. I do not, therefore, think that the provisions of Section 19 of the Punjab General Clauses Act can be relied upon for justifying the review of a quasi-judicial order by a statutory Tribunal so as to reverse the same and to inculpate the person who had been exculpated by the earlier orders. 9. The order of removal (Annexure C to the return) is based on the earlier order of suspension. It must, therefore, fall with the order of suspension for one of the same reasons for which the earlier order is being set aside. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ petition and set aside and quash the impugned order of the petitioner's suspension (Annexure G to the Writ Petition) of October 5, 1966, and the subsequential order of his removal dated October 27, 1966 (Annexure C to the return) from the office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kariha, Tehsil Nawanshahar, District Jullundur. As the petitioner has succeeded on technical grounds, the parties are left to bear their own costs of the proceedings in this Court. Petition allowed.