1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 968/2010 Nandkisho Uttamrao Deshmukh -: versus :- Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 5, 2010. Heard Shri A.V. Gawande, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri P.S. Patil learned counsel for respondent no.4-Caveator and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Contention of Shri Gawande, learned counsel is, procedure contemplated by Section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, has not been complied with because there is no report of Chief Executive Officer and the report is prepared by the Agricultural Development Officer. He points out that the said report is prior to application filed before the Additional Commissioner for removal of petitioner and hence said report cannot form subject matter of consideration. He has further stated that the petitioner was not in custody of the alleged Biogas/Gobargas plant and the charge of its clandestine removal and sale does not amount to any misconduct under that Section. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the papers. Complaint before the Additional 2 Commissioner is in the shape of application for removal of petitioner and it is lodged on 12.12.2008. The said Authority thereafter has ordered the Chief Executive Officer to hold enquiry and on 27.02.2009, that enquiry has been conducted by the chief Executive Officer. The report was thereafter submitted and action has been taken on the basis of that report. The earlier report by Agricultural Development Officer is dated 26.11.2008 and it is because of the complaint dated 23.07.2008 made by respondent nos. 4 and others to various authorities including the Collector. Thus complaint and proceedings under Section 39, are distinct. There is nothing on record to show that the report of Agricultural Development Officer is acted upon by the Chief Executive Officer. The fact show that the Gobargas plant of Gram Panchayat was sold as scrap by petitioner to one Jabbar Shah, resident of satephal and he collected amount of Rs. 39,000/- through that sale. He has misappropriated that amount. His contention that the said conduct does not constituted misconduct and cognizance under section 39[1] is without any merit. The statement of witness like Jabbar Shah clearly implicate the petitioner. In view of this finding, no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.