IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2291 of 2011 KABITA DEVI WIFE OF RAJNIKANT RANJAY ALIAS UMESH RAM, OF VILLAGE CHHOTI DASTANI, POLICE STATION GORADIH, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ BIBHAG, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. ANUSHRAWAN OFFICER, PANCHAYATI RAJ BIBHAG, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR. 5. SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SADAR, BHAGALPUR. 6. PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, BHAGALPUR. 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GORADIH, BHAGALPUR. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 01.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Sarath, Daharpur, Prakhand Goradih, District- Bhagalpur aggrieved by the order dated 3.01.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj unseating her in exercise of power under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006. Assailing the order relying upon an order of this Court in CWJC No 18905 of 2010 (Vijay Singh Vs. State of Bihar) it is submitted that the order is bad because a personal hearing was not granted. The second submission is that the Principal Secretary is not the State Government. Earlier the power was vested in the Divisional Commissioner replaced by the State Government. The order is therefore without jurisdiction. The next submission is that the petitioner has committed no wrong. Learned counsel for the State submits that a show cause notice was given, replied to duly considered, whereafter the final order has been passed. Whether or not there have been infirmities in the decision making process in a particular case will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There can be no uniform standard or yard stick to lay down if there have been infirmities in the decision making process. Once a charge stands admitted, any infirmities shall be of no consequence. The petitioner in reply to the show cause as noticed in the impugned order takes the defense that she is illiterate, does not know how to read and write except for penning her signature and acted on the representation of those whom she trusted. A person may have had formal education. Another may not have had. But a person has to accept responsibility for one’s own actions. If the petitioners contends that those whom she trusted, had let her down. The answerability shall lie with the petitioner for the allegations. That she may pursue her remedies against those who let her down is an entirely different issue. If the petitioner acknowledges, and which she does in no terms, that she was a mere puppet as a Mukhiya acting at the behest of others and that she had been let down by those whom she trusted, that cannot be stated to be grass roots democracy. Perhaps that grass root democracy may take more time to mature, shall not vest jurisdiction in the Court to interfere with the impugned order when the charges stand admitted. The writ application is dismissed. Ibrar/- ( Navin Sinha, J.)