IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2212 of 2011 MD.JAHIRUDDIN, Son of Late Md. Alauddin, Resident of Village- Nirpur, P.O. Nirpur, P.S. Dhamdaha, District- Purnea, Presently Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Nirpur, Block- Dhamdaha, District- Purena. -----------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar Patna. 4. The Liaison Officer, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate, Purnea, District- Purnea. 7. The Block Development Officer, Dhamdaha, District- Purnea. -----------------------Respondents. ----------- 2. 04.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the Mukhiya of Nirpur Gram Panchayat. He is aggrieved by the order bearing no.24 dated 19.1.2011 (Annexure-9) whereunder in exercise of the powers contained in Sub section 5 of Section 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 he has been removed from the office of Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat by the State Government. 3. From perusal of Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the impugned order dated 19.1.2011 itself it appears that the petitioner is responsible for erroneous grant of Indra Awas to the same beneficiaries twice ignoring the better claim of Sl. No. 160 and he did not even inform 2 the authorities of such wrong who sanctioned the grant on his recommendation. He is also found to have committed irregularity of permitting Sakina Khatoon W/o Md. Ali to withdraw Rs. 24,000/- twice from two different bank account for raising of house under the Indira Housing Scheme. Both the bank accounts were opened on the recommendation of the petitioner. Aforesaid findings were initially recorded by the Joint Director Industries under report dated 8.10.2009 which was submitted to the Principal Secretary of the Rural Development Department. Later the report of the Joint Director was sent to the District Magistrate who after conducting enquiry found the findings recorded by the Joint Director to be correct and submitted report dated 8.7.2010. In the light of the report dated 8.7.2010 petitioner was issued notice asking him to show cause as to why he be not removed from the office of the Mukhia as he is found to have committed irregularity in allotment of house under Indira Housing Scheme. Petitioner submitted his reply disputing the findings recorded by the District Magistrate. Reply of the petitioner was sent to the District Magistrate for his comment. The District Magistrate submitted his comment dated 30.10.2010 reiterating his earlier findings. The State Government 3 having considered the reply of the petitioner as also the comment of the District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 19.1.2011 removing the petitioner from the office of Mukhia. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that copy of comment of the District Magistrate dated 30.10.2010 was not served on the petitioner which has been relied in the impugned order as such the impugned order dated 19.1.2011 is fit to be set aside for placing reliance over a material copy whereof was not served on the petitioner. 5. From perusal of the impugned order itself it is evident that the comment dated 30.10.2010 was nothing but reiteration of the earlier report of the District Magistrate dated 8.7.2010 whereunder after enquiry the District Magistrate had found the allegations against the petitioner to be true. In my opinion therefore it was not necessary to serve the copy of the comment on the petitioner. 6. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Anand Kr. ( V. N. Sinha, J.)