( 1 ) ). The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Barvala Gram Panchayat and was given charge on 16th January, 2002. The petitioner was removed as Sarpanch vide order dated 20th April, 2002 under Section 57[1] of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act for short ] by the District Development Officer, Ahmedabad. The said removal order was challenged by the petitioner by way of Appeal before the appellate authority, i. e. Development Commissioner, who, in turn, vide his order dated 6th June, 2002 dismissed the said appeal, confirming the order dated 20th April, 2002 passed by the District Development Officer. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Special Civil Application.

( 2 ) ). The facts of this case reflect that the petitioner, while he was discharging his functions as Sarpanch, received a show cause notice under Section 57[1] of the Act which is at Annexure-B to the petition, wherein certain charges were levelled against the petitioner in the said show cause notice. Charge No. 1 relates to non-mentioning of the date of next meeting in the Minutes of the meeting held on 15-3-2002 which was adjourned for want of quorum. Under the Rules, if the meeting is adjourned, in that very meeting, the date of next meeting is required to be announced by giving necessary information in that behalf. Since the petitioner has not done so, the said charge was levelled against him and thereby he was subjected to the charge of dereliction of the duty as Sarpanch. Second ground relates to non calling of budget meeting even though request was made on behalf of 16 members for calling such meeting and accordingly, said charge was levelled on the ground that the petitioner has failed to discharge his duty. Third charge relates to non-passing of the budget by stipulated time, i. e. 31st March, 2002. It is also alleged that the petitioner has deliberately failed to convene the meeting for the purpose of passing such budget and accordingly, the petitioner was found to be negligent in view of his failure in convening such meeting for passing the budget. So far the last charge is concerned, it is alleged that it is mandatory to pass budget by 31st March, 2002 but the petitioner has deliberately not convened the meeting for the same and accordingly, he is negligent in discharging his duties and has failed to discharge his duty which was required to be performed under the provisions of the Act. From the record produced before this Court, it has come on record that the petitioner gave a detailed reply dated 15th April, 2002, which is at page-20 of the compilation, wherein the petitioner has denied each and every allegation levelled against him.

( 3 ) ). So far as the first ground stated in the show cause notice is concerned, the petitioner pointed out that the meeting was convened on 15th March, 2002 for the purpose of passing the budget but said meeting was adjourned for want of requisite quorum. The petitioner pointed out that it is the duty of the Secretary to bring to the notice of the petitioner about giving another date. The petitioner also pointed out that as per the Rules and procedure of holding the meeting, it was the duty of the Secretary to record the Minutes of the meeting and for that, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. As regards the second ground is concerned, it was submitted by the petitioner that since a No Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner, for which, he was required to convene a meeting, he sought a clarification from the Development Commissioner as to which meeting he should call first. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not sure and was confused as to whether he should first call for the meeting in connection with the No Confidence Motion or the meeting for passing the budget. In this regard, a clarification was sought for by the petitioner vide his letter dated 21st March, 2002, which is at p