I.D. Dua, J. - The short point which calls for decision in this case is as to how far the orders passed by the Director of Panchayats, Punjab (annexure 'A' dated 3.3.1960, and annexure 'B' dated 23.7.1960) are lawful and supportable in the present proceedings. 2. The facts are not very much in dispute and may briefly be stated. 3. Bijay Singh petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of village Dinod, Tehsil Bhiwani, district Hissar, and Sardar Singh, Ram Lal and Ram Kishan are the duly elected Panches of the said Panchayat. On the enforcement of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act of 1954, which vested Shamilat Deh in the Gram Panchayat for the benefit of the proprietors, mutation was entered by the Patwari of an area of 3,200 Bighas as Shamilat Deh in the name of the Gram Panchayat on the 8th of May, 1954 petitioner Bijay Singh and others proprietors objected this asserting that the area in the separate possession of each proprietor could not be transferred to the Panchayat. In spite of these protests, however, under order of the Punjab Government, the Revenue Officer sanctioned the mutation of the whole area in favour of the Panchayat. As a result the proprietors of the village filed a suit against the Panchayat in the Civil Court for a declaration that mutation No. 3710 in favour of the Panchayat was illegal and ultra vires and therefore, not binding on the plaintiffs. The petitioners thereupon engaged a Senior Advocate who advised them the claim of the plaintiffs could not be seriously defended. In consequence, a written statement was filed admitting the claim of the proprietors. This result in a consent decree in favour of the proprietors on the 27th May, 1959. Some non-proprietors then filed a suit in the Civil Court on the 20th of October, 1959, seeking a declaration that the property was that of the proprietors and that the plaintiffs in that suit had a right of pasturing in the suit land. This suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the 8th of August, 1960. In the meantime on the 3rd of March, 1960, the Director of Panchyats, Punjab, suspended the petitioners. This order is attached with the petition and is marked as annexing 'A' and is followed by another order dated the 23rd July, 1960, which is marked as annexing 'B'. It is these two orders which have been challenged in the present proceedings as illegal and ultra vires and also based on inadequate and improper enquiry. 4. At this stage it would be necessary to reproduce the two orders :- "Annexing 'A' During the course of an enquiry it has transpired that Sarvshri Bijay Singh Sarpanch, Sardar Singh, Ram Lal and Ram Krishan Panches of Gram Panchayat Dinod, Tehsil Bhiwani, District Hissar, are alleged to have colluded with the proprietors of the village in the matter of a declaratory civil suit in respect of the common land vested in the Panchayat and have admitted their claim, in the Court, by filing a confessional reply to the plaint as defendants. As a result of their collusion with the plaintiffs a decree has been passed against the Panchayat by the Court and the Gram Panchayat has thus deprived of the advantage of the common land measuring 2000 Bighas. They have thus ignored the interest of the Panchayat. Moreover, the Sarpanch has wasted the Gram Fund aimlessly by engaging the service of a lawyer for the pursuance of the cases in the Court. A great financial loss has been caused by them to the Panchayat. Their continuance in the office of Sarpanch/Panches is considered undesirable in the interests of the public. In exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Section 102(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, I, Director of Panchayats, Punjab therefore, suspend the said Sarvshri Bijay Singh, Ram Lal, Ram Kishan and Sardar Singh and debar them for taking part in any act or proceedings of the Panchayat during the period of their suspension. They shall hand over the records, money or property of the Panchayat if any with them to the District Panchayat Officer, Hissar, authorised in this behalf." Annexure 'B' "Whereas I am satisfied after enquiry that Sarvshri Bijay Singh Sarpanch, Sardar Singh, Ram Lal and Ram Kishan Panches of Gram Panchayat Dinod, Tehsil Bhiwani, District Hissar have colluded with the proprietors of the village in the matter of a declaratory Civil suit in respect of the common land vested in the Panchayat and have admitted the claim of the proprietors and plaintiffs in the Court by filing a confessional reply to the plaint as defendants. As a result of their collusion with the plaintiffs a decree has been passed against the Panchayat by the Court and the Gram Panchayat has thus been deprived of common land measuring 2000 bighas. They have thus ignored the interests of the Panchayat. Moreover, the Sarpanch has wasted the Gram Fund aimlessly by engaging the services of lawyer for the pursuance of the cases in the Court. A great financial loss has been caused by them to the Panchayat. Their continuance in the office of Sarpanch/Panches is considered undesirable in the interests of the public. Therefore, in exercise of the powers contained in Section 102(2)(e) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, read with Punjab Government Notification No. 11508-LB-53/10558, dated the 6th May, 1954, I, D.C. Verma, Director of Panchayats, Punjab, hereby remove Sarvshri Bijay Singh, Sardar Singh, Ram Lal and Ram Kishan from the office of Panches Gram Panchayat Dinod, Tehsil Bhiwani, District Hissar and further order under Section 102(3) of the reelection to the said Panchayat for a period of three years from the date of their removal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of suspension under Section 102(1) of the Act without any show cause notice is violative of the rules of natural justice and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. Annexure 'B' which purports to be an order under Section 102(2)(e) is also described to be contrary to law and mala fide because it proceeds without any proper enquiry and without affording to the petitioners any opportunity of showing cause against it. 6. On behalf of the respondents, Shri Kaushal has submitted that annexure 'A' is really a notice to show cause and cause having actually been shown in the form of explanation as is clear from annexure 'C' the order of the Director of Panchayats is valid and conclusive and that this Court is not competent to issue a writ against the said order. 7. After devoting my most anxious thoughts to the contentions raised at the Bar I think this writ petition must succeed. Annexure 'A' neither purports to be a notice or does its language by any stretch suggest that the Director of Panchayats was giving a show cause notice to the petitioners against any charge framed by the officer or against any proposed action which was contemplated by the Director. On the contrary, it expressly confesses to suspend the present petitioners under Section 102(1) of the Act. No other contention was raised the Bar in opposing the petition. 8. As just stated, no serious attempt has been made on behalf of the respondents to justify on any other ground the impugned order which was indisputably passed without a show cause notice I do not think it can be reasonably disputed that the office of an elected Panch and Sarpanch constitutes a valuable right. It is true that it is neither property nor does it amount to a fundamental right but it is nevertheless a valuable right in a democratic country like ours. The Sarpanch and he Panches are elected by the people by a formal process laid down in a statute. Their removal from the elected office is therefore, a serious matter. Still more serious is the question of disfranchising a citizen. In the present case, not only they have been removed but they have also been disqualified for reelection to the Panchayat for a period of 3 years from the date of their removal. To do so unceremoniously, without any formal and effective enquiry without affording to the persons concerned a fair and reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action, must shock the conscience of every one who wants to see this Republic to grow and develop on truly democratic lines. Panchayat Raj has been introduced in this Republic in pursuance of the directive principle laid down in Article 40 of the Constitution. The organisation of village Panchayats would thus appear to have been undertaken to endow the Panchayats with powers and authority to unable them to function as units of self-government. Unceremonious manner in which the present petitioners have been suspended and disqualified by the Director of Panchayats hardly fits in with the rule of natural justice to which all proceedings which contemplate a prejudicial act affecting a citizen's valuable right must confirm. The impugned orders are so glaringly defective that, as already observed, no serious effort was made by the respondents at the Bar to justify them. For the reason given above, this writ petition must be allowed and the impugned orders quashed, the petitioners are entitled to their costs to these proceedings, which are fixed at Rs. 100/- Petition allowed.