IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17422 of 2009 1. PANCHA DEVI W/O RUDAL RAI R/O VILL.- TIKA RAMPUR BHAIYARAM RAI TOLA, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF PANCHAYAT RAJ GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. SECRETARY OF STATE ELECTION COMMISSION BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER MUNGER DIVISION 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MUNGER 6. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER MUNGER 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MUNGER 8. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF GRAM PANCHAYAT TIKA RAMPUR, MUNGER 9. PRAMUKH OF SADAR BLOCK, MUNGER 10. DIRECTOR OF GRAM PANCHAYATI RAJ GOVT. OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 03.03.2010 The petitioner was elected Mukhiya of Panchayat Tika Rampur in the district of Munger. She challenges the order of the State Government dated 29.10.2009 by which she has been removed in terms of section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Petitioner asserts that the allegations of defalcation as made against her are wrong and false. She took over charge as Mukhiya in the year 2006 and defalcations were made in the period 2001 and 2008. Earlier one Rudal Rai was the Mukhiya who has not been proceeded against. She further submits that she has not been an absconder much less for a period of six months she was in judicial custody. For securing her bail as per orders of this Court she had deposited Rs. 1,75,000/- being her part of alleged misappropriation. She was not willfully absent from performing the functions of Mukhiya nor was she absent from meetings of the - 2 - Panchayat samiti. It is further submitted that the case against her is totally false and concocted. In course of argument it is further mentioned that consequent to her removal fresh elections have been called for. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the orders of the State Government under section 18(5) of the Act. This Court exercises power of judicial review. No procedural infirmity or legal infirmity has been pointed out. On question by the Court the petitioner has admitted that Rudal Rai is none other than the petitioner’s husband who was the earlier mukhiya. She does not dispute that consequent to the first information report lodged she was absent and could not perform her functions as Mukhiya for long periods. She admits that for long periods for almost six months she had not attended the office or meetings. Her defence is that it was not voluntary but because she was in judicial custody. In her show cause she has, inter- alia, accepted that while she was in custody, the Mukhiya Secretary forged her signature and withdrew about Rs. 8,00,000/- ( Rs. Eight lac ) from the Bank account of the Panchayat but she has taken no action in this regard. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. The writ petition is dismissed. BTiwary/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)