IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2814 of 2011 NIRMALA DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 18.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to be the elected Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Parsawan, Block-Koch, District-Gaya, aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, in exercise of powers under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, unseating her from that post. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to persuade the Court of grave irregularities in the decision making process inasmuch as copy of relevant documents and records relied upon were not furnished to her. No evidence was led in her presence to prove the charge and no personal hearing was granted. There were six charges against the petitioner, including serious charges of financial misdemeanor acting along with her husband. A First Information Report has also been lodged against her and she along with her husband were arrested and have been released on bail. 2 The question of any infirmities in the decision making process may arise if the charges are contested and seriously denied raising a controversy for adjudication. But when the charges are not denied and virtually stand admitted before the statutory authority, there is no occasion to test the impugned order. The cause shown by the petitioner dated 16.2.2010, is available on record. She states that she had performed her duties as a Mukhiya properly and was being unnecessarily harassed. She was a decent woman with a clean character and attempts were being made to malign her. That she and her husband had been falsely implicated on the charges and an F.I.R. lodged as part of a conspiracy. The officer incharge of Koch P.S. wrongly arrested her and her husband. The entire matter was pending before the Criminal Court. To take any action against her by the impugned order was in contempt of the proceedings which is still pending before the Criminal Court. The six charges on which reply had been sought were matters pending before the Vigilance Court. Therefore, the allegations were a figment of imagination and result of conspiracy. The allegations against her therefore be rejected. It goes beyond pale of any controversy now that the six charges against her as noticed in the 3 impugned order dated 21.10.2010, have not been denied by her. The absence of any denial in so far as the present proceedings are concerned tantamounts to admission of the same. This observation shall remain confined for the purposes of the present application and consideration of the order dated 21.10.2010. Nothing stated herein shall have any effect or opinion on the criminal case pending against the petitioner and her husband which has to be proved on its own steam, in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the Court from the pleadings in the writ petition that the enquiry reports on which the impugned order was founded were themselves suspicious, ex parte in nature against a helpless woman and that certain allegations were wrong. That the petitioner had complained of back door appointments by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj, before the Deputy Commissioner. The contentions sought to be urged in the writ petition for the first time appear frivolous and make out no case for reconsideration of the order dated 21.10.2010. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)