- (1.) HEARD Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned AGP for the respondent authority.
(2.) IN present petition the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: - "10 (B) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction including the writ in the nature of mandamus thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.6.2014 passed by the District Development Officer, Sabarkantha, and order dated 13.8.2014 passed by the District Development Officer and present petitioner be restored to the post of Sarpanch, Kesarpur (Old Kesarpur) Gram Panchayat, Taluka Himmatnagar, Dist. Sabarkantha."
(3.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2014 passed by the District Development Officer under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") whereby the petitioner came to be removed from the post of sarpanch. 3.1 The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.2014 passed by Additional Development Commissioner, dismissing the petitioner's Appeal against the order passed by the District Development Officer dated 25.6.2014 and confirming the said order vide his order dated 13.8.2014. The factual background is in narrow compass: - 4.1 The petitioner has averred that he was visited with a show -cause -notice under Section 57(1) of the Act whereby it was alleged, inter alia that the petitioner sanctioned / passed certain bills in respect of the work which was never carried out and by representing / certifying that the work is carried out, he availed the bill amount. It was also alleged that the petitioner had issued a work -order dated 28.9.2012 in the sum of Rs. 15,150/ - for getting work of installing 3 phase water pump and then he had certified that the work was carried out and water pump was installed. 4.2 Under the show -cause -notice dated 1.1.2014 petitioner's explanation with regard to allegations leveled against him was called for. 4.3 According to show -cause -notice, when the verification / inspection was carried out it was noticed that the water pump was not installed and there was only one hand pump at the bore well. 4.4 The petitioner's explanation by the said noticed dated 1.1.2014 was called for. 4.5 The petitioner submitted his explanation / reply claiming that actually the work was carried out however, when the water pump was put in operation, it allegedly did not function due to lower water level and want of sufficient income of water and it was removed. 4.6 The petitioner also claimed that the removal of the water pump and its deposit in the store was recorded in the dead -stock register (and pump was, allegedly, placed in the Panchayat office). 4.7 The District Development Officer considered the submission and explanation by the petitioner. 4.8 However, in view of the fact that sufficient evidence in support of petitioner's claim was not made available before the authority and / or was not placed on record, the claim of the petitioner was not accepted and the District Development Officer, having found that the explanation was not supported by the relevant documents, and that therefore, it cannot be accepted. On such conclusion the District Development Officer decided to pass order under Section 57 of the Act and remove the petitioner from the post of the sarpanch. Accordingly the District Development Officer passed order dated 25.6.2014 and removed the petitioner. 4.9 The said order was carried before Additional Development Commissioner who, after hearing the petitioner and examining the material on record, concurred with the District Development Officer and dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the District Development Officer's order dated 25.6.2014, vide his order dated 13.8.2014 4.10 Against the said orders the petitioner has taken out present petition.;