1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.639 of 2011 Nirmala Devi . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the appellant : M. Dhirendra Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mr.S.Raza Ahmad,Sr.Adv.,AAG-IX. : Mr.Vishwambhar Prasad, A.C. to AAG-IX. 2. 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the writ court whereby no interference has been made with the order dated 21st October 2010 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj whereby the appellant/writ-petitioner was removed from the post of Mukhiya in exercise of power under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchyat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the ‘Act’). On going through the charges levelled against the appellant and her bald reply that the charges are false, we do not find any material on facts to hold that the order of the Government is arbitrary or illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant has seriously raised a question of law that in exercise of power under Section 18(5) of the Act, the Government is required to not only give an opportunity of explanation as provided under Section 18(5) of the Act, but also further opportunity of personal hearing and leading evidence etc. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Md. Mumtaz Ahmad Vs. Sate of Bihar, reported in 2005(1) PLJR 263. On careful perusal of that judgment it is found that the main issue involved in that case was whether the order restraining a Mukhiya from working could be passed 2 by the Collector under any provision of law. The court gave a finding that the Collector has no such jurisdiction. It was not a case which involved decision as to whether Section 18(5) of the Act requires something further than providing opportunity of hearing by way of explanation. Since the provisions of the Act are absolutely clear and are not in conflict with natural justice, we do not find any necessity of any further interpretation of the decision which requires the Government to take a decision in the matter after giving appropriate opportunity of submitting explanation. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted this Court to go into the minute details of facts to find out whether the appellant has been victimized but the writ court cannot be converted into a court of appeal. In the present case opportunity of explanation was admittedly given and availed. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly dismissed. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)