JUDGMENT 1. - Grabling, misutilisation and misappropriation of public exchequers money by Sarpanch and unwholly, unethical and immoral effort to provide a hyper - technical legal protective umbrella against its recovery, is the pivot of debate of this avoidable, luxurious litigation. 2. Instead of making payment and setting example of clean public life, the Sarpanch has rushed to this court for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, in spite of remedies being available under Section 67 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. 3. Mangilal was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bamali, Panchayat Samiti Mandal District Bhilwara till 1965. He could not succeed in the elections held for the office of Sarpanch in 1965. 4. An inquiry was held against the petitioner and he was found guilty for misutilisation of Rs. 500/- received by the Panchayat for the construction of Panchayat Bhawan. Yet another serious charge pertains to Rs. 550/- received by way of grant from Mica Mines Welfare Fund for the purpose of digging well. Out of this, only Rs. 2394.60/- were utilised properly for sanctioned purposes. 5. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner by the State Government under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act after the conclusion of the inquiry, and thereafter order (Ex. 4/1) dated the 7th August, 1976 was passed by the State Government recording findings against the petitioner in respect of the charges alleged to have been proved against the petitioner. 6. This order was followed by orders Exhibit 5 & 6 dated the 11th September, 1976 and 8th October, 1976 respectively calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 3675.40/-. 7. Shri V.C.S. Singhvi, who argued the case on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that both the charges against the petitioner were not fully proved. Reliance was placed on Exhibit R. 7 at page 72, the inquiry report, in support the arguments of Shri Singhvi that a sum of Rs. 500/- was not misused by the petitioner. I have carefully considered this submission of Shri Singhvi and I am unable to appreciate and accept it. The present proceedings are under Article 226 of the Constitution and I cannot sit in appeal over the report of the inquiry officer or the finding of the State Government. I am also not in a position to reappreciate the evidence and the findings. The present proceedings are under Article 226 of the Constitution and I cannot sit in appeal over the report of the inquiry officer or the finding of the State Government. I am also not in a position to reappreciate the evidence and the findings. No error of jurisdiction has been shown by the petitioner, warranting interference in respect of finding of fact and, therefore, I hold that the finding of the respondents that a sum of Rs. 500/- was misused, cannot be interfered on facts. 8. Whatever I have said about charge for misutilisation of Rs. 500/- equally applies to the second charge for sum of Rs. 3175.40/- For the same reasons. I am tenable to accept the contention of Shri Singhvi that second charge is not proved. 9. The legal and logical conclusion of rejecting the above contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner should have deposited the above amount which are outstanding against him on account of misutilisation of the funds of the Panchayat. 10. He was a Sarpanch and, therefore, an elected representative in whom the Panchayat and the village people had reposed confidence A Sarpauch is trustee of the Grain Panchayat and the public funds are placed at his disposal for utilisation according to the sanctions and grants. He is not a Monarch or a Despotic King who can utilise funds in whatever manner, he likes. A Sarpanch cannot utilise funds in utter disregard of the sanctions and grants made by the State Government or the Panchayat Samiti or the higher functionaries. By the gearing up of the majority in the Panchayat and getting resolution passed, he cannot validate the misutilisation of the funds. So far as the question of sanctions and grants and advances of money for the particular earmarked purposes is concerned, a Sarpanch cannot change the utilisation heads, simply by getting a resolution passed of the Panchayat which is always presided by him and most of the members, hardly are conversant with the law in this respect. 11. In view of the above, effort of the Sarpanch not to pay the amount cannot be said to be honest or bona fide and can safely be termed as dishonest. 11. In view of the above, effort of the Sarpanch not to pay the amount cannot be said to be honest or bona fide and can safely be termed as dishonest. It has been held by this Curt in Gyan Singh v. Collector, Bhilwara (DB) (1956 RLW 44) that Article 226 cannot be utilised by a citizen who dishonestly wants to avoid the liability or responsibility to pay the amount. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept any contention of Shri Singhvi in respect of technicalities of law. 12. Shri Singhvi pointed out that inquiry was held under Section 17 of the Panchayat Act and the recovery can only be made under Section 67 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and R. 22 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. 13. It was then pointed out that no opportunity to show cause was given and therefore, the proceedings cannot be taken under Section 67 of the Panchayat Act. Firstly, as I have held relying upon the decision of Gyan Singh's case (supra) that I cannot entertain any technical objection of the petitioner for disowning liability and responsibility to pay amount. Secondly, I am of the opinion that during the course of the inquiry a notice to show cause was given and thereafter inquiry was held and before recording the findings, again a notice was given. That being so, in either case, there is no substance in the submission of Shri Singhvi and they are devoid of any merit. 14. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.Petition dismissed. *******