1. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.05.2012, passed by respondent No.2 Additional Development Commissioner, Panchayat Department, Gandhinagar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 08.011.2010, passed by respondent No.3 District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Patan, removing him from the post of Sarpanch of Sujanpur Gram Panchayat, has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that while he was performing his duties as an elected Sarpanch of Sujanpur Gram Panchayat, Taluka: Siddhpur, District: Patan, a show cause notice came to be issued to him on 27.08.2009, by respondent No.3, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the post of Sarpanch on the ground of alleged irregularities committed in the work of laying of the road from the Pond till the Highway. It is stated in the show cause notice that upon asking the villagers, it was noticed that the work of laying the road was performed by the use of machinery, rather than through employment of labourers. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 12.06.2010, pointing out that the work had been carried out under the supervision of the Talati-cum-Mantri, Executive Engineer and the Programme Officer, and that the measurement had been taken by those officials. It was further pointed out by the petitioner that the Technical Assistant and the Programme Officer have appended their signatures on the Measurement Book and the cheque for payment of the work done has been issued to the labourers by the Talati-cum-Mantri, therefore, the petitioner has no hand in the commission of the alleged irregularities. According to the petitioner, at every stage of the work inspection was carried out by the Technical Assistant, under the supervision of the Taluka Development Officer, and the site was visited and inspected by the Programme Coordinator, Deputy Executive Engineer and the Taluka Development Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that without taking into consideration all these aspects pointed out by him in his reply, the impugned order, removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, was passed by respondent No.3 in exercise of power under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ( the Act for short). The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 under the provisions of Section 57(3) of the Act. While admitting the appeal, initially, the order dated 08.11.2010, passed by respondent No.3, was stayed. However, vide order dated 14.03.2012, respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for default, as the learned advocate for the petitioner did not remain present on that date. An application for restoration (styled as review application ) was filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2, upon which notice was issued but no order was passed. During the pendency of the said application, the election of the Upa Sarpanch was declared, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.6016 of 2012, with a prayer to restrain the respondent-authorities from conducting the election of Upa Sarpanch till the decision of the review application or, in the alternative, for directions to pronounce the order in the said application, at the earliest. When the petition was taken up for hearing before the High Court, the election to the post of Upa Sarpanch had already been held and the result declared. This Court, vide order dated 25.04.2012, therefore, directed respondent No.2 to decide the review application within a period of ten days. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 16.05.2012, giving rise to the filing of this petition.

3. Mr. Dipan A. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made lengthy submissions, the gist of which is as follows:

(A) That, the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Act, pertaining to t