IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14497 of 2010 1. FIKANI DEVI W/O BHABHI KHAN RAM R/O VILL.- MAHUA BHUSHA, P.O.- LACHNAUTA, P.S.- GAUNAHA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 3. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 4. SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, PATNA, BIHAR 5. DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, PATNA, BIHAR 6. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 7. JUNIOR ENGINEER, GAUNAHA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 8. AJIT KUMAR JHA, THE THEN JUNIOR ENGINEER GAUNAHA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 9. JAFIR AHMAD S/O SHEIKH ABDUL HASAN R/O MAHUA BHUSHA PANCHAYAT LACHNAUTA, P.S.- GAUNAHA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 10. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 11. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GAUNAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2. 22.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to be the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Lachnauta, Block- Gaunaha District-West Champaran. She is aggrieved by the final order dated 6.7.2010, passed by the Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj unseating her from the post in exercise of powers under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). It is not in controversy that a show cause notice was issued to her, duly replied whereafter 2 final orders have been passed. The law stands well settled that the Court shall not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the respondents but shall primarily examine the decision making process. The Court finds no error in the decision making process. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner in her reply to the show cause had taken a specific defence that co- accused Zafir Ahmad had taken advantage of her illiteracy and obtained her signature by deceit and also forged her signature in collusion with the contractor and other authorities for alleged siphoning of funds of which she was not aware. This has not been discussed and/or considered in the final order. It is next submitted that the Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj has abdicated statutory power by relying upon the comments of the District Magistrate on the cause shown by the petitioner. The absence of independent application of mind by the Secretary therefore vitiates the order. Once the petitioner acknowledged having given certain signed documents to Zafir Ahmad, the charge stands admitted. Thereafter, the question if signatures were obtained by deceit or forgery being of 3 disputed question of facts, the Court finds no error in the decision making process warranting any interference. The defence of the petitioner raises very serious disputed questions of fact which can only be tested in a full fledged civil proceeding. In so far as the provisions of Section 18(5) of the Act are concerned, it provides for reasonable opportunity to defend. That having been given, the Court does not find substance in the submission that the Secretary has acted at the dictates of the District Magistrate. The final order displays due application of mind to the allegation, the cause shown, the comments of the District Magistrate upon the same to arrive at a final conclusion. The charge having been admitted by the petitioner, her defence on disputed facts, in the manner presented, cannot be examined in a writ petition. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)