M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is by the former chairman, Chalgera Village Panchayat in Kustagi Taluk of Raichur District. He was removed from the office of the chairman by an order dt. 1st March, 1982. The order came to be passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Lingasugar, raichur Dist. who is the 2nd respondent herein. The ground for removal of the Chairman (petitioner) was that he mis-utilised the funds allotted to the Panchayat, in that, the funds sactioned for the construction of Majiges or godowns were utilised for construction of the Village Panchayat building. He was issuedi with a show cause notice as to why he should not be removed on account of certain charges indicated in the show cause notice. There were as many as five separate charges. ( 2 ) THE first one related to withdrawal of a sum of Rupees 12,000 in ten instalments from the R. D. C. C bank Kustagi in his individual capacity without the signature of the Secretary of the Village Panchayat. The, second charge related to the fact that the amount kept in the R. D. C. C. Bank was specifically deposited in the Bank for utilisation for construction of revenue yielding buildings in the Panchayat area to augment the revenue of the panchayat and the same had been utilised for expenditure on non-revenue yielding buildings. The third charge was that the amounts in the Bank were withdrawn on different dates without the knowledge of the Village Panchayat committee and its Secretary and not entered in the cash book. The next charge related to non-furnishing of explanation when the Chief Executive officer of the Taluk Development Board called for his explanation in that behalf. ( 3 ) THE 5th charge related to the fact that he had mis-appropriatedl the Panchayat amounts and therefore, a proposal was made to remove him from the Chairman-ship as well as the membership of the Panchayat Committee. It was also proposed that the amounts mis-appropriated by him should be recovered as arrears of land revenue. To these five charges, the petitioner gave his explanation stating that he was no guided properly by the secretary of the panchayat and that he utilised the amount meant for construction of godowns only for the construction of the village Panchayat building in accordance with the resolution passed by the village Panchayat at its meeting held on 13. To these five charges, the petitioner gave his explanation stating that he was no guided properly by the secretary of the panchayat and that he utilised the amount meant for construction of godowns only for the construction of the village Panchayat building in accordance with the resolution passed by the village Panchayat at its meeting held on 13. 4. 1981 arid therefore, he had not committed any act of misconduct which entailed; removal from his office. The asst. Commissioner took the explanaon offered as an admission of the main charge of mis-utilisation of funds and also proceeded to dis-believe the petitioner's explanation that he had spent money for the construction of the Village Panchayat building on account of the fact that the Village Panchayat building was sanctioned by the Taluk Development Board and the work was executed departmentally through the Block Development officer. No material appears to have been appended to the explanation which supported the petitioner's case that he had spent amounts which he had drawn from the R. D. C. C. Bank of Kustagi for the purpose of disbursing the costs in regard to the construction of the. Village Panchayat building. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner had temporarily misappropriated the money for a purpose other than that for which it was put in the Bank. In that circumstance, he held the petitioner guilty of mis-conduct and removed him from his office passing the following order :"the points of arguments were that the Karnataka Village Panchayat and local Boards Act does not prescribe duties of Chairman ; and it was done because the Secretary never enlightened the chairman. It has been admitted that money given for constuction of maligies was utilised for other purpose. Further a separate account was operated by Chairman alone. It has been argued money given for construction of maligies was used for construction of Panchayat building. " ( 4 ) FIRSTLY, from the admission of sri Somappa it is clear that the amount allotted for the construction of maligies was operated separately in bank account number 52 without the signature of Secretary of Panchayat. Secondly this amount was withdrawn on various dates allegedly for the construction of Panchayat building. No proof has been adduced that the amount withdrawn was used for the said constructions. Secondly this amount was withdrawn on various dates allegedly for the construction of Panchayat building. No proof has been adduced that the amount withdrawn was used for the said constructions. A perusal of nominal muster roll shows the Block Office took up the construction of the, Panchayat building departmentally. When this is so, it is not possible Chairman expended money for construction of Panchayat building. Even if this contention were to be believed, there is no direction from taluk boardi empowernig the chairman to spend money to construct the panchayat building. ( 5 ) HENCE, I feel the Chairman had temporarily misappropriated the money for private purposes and subsequently has come up with the plea that the money was used for panchayat purposes. This clearly means the Chairman is guilty of misconduct and hence the following. No. VPC. 58|81-82. Dt. 1. 3. 82 ( 6 ) SRI Somappa Kurubar is hereby removed from the office of the Village panchayat, Chalgeri, taluk Kustagi as Chairman and member. Order pronounced this 1st of March 1982. Sd -Asst. Commissioner, lingusugur. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the above order, the petitioner approached the Divisional commissioner, Gulbarga, under S. 207 of the Karnataka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by way of revision. That revision also came to be dismissed confirming the ordier of the Asst. Commissioner as per the order dt. 31st July, 198,2 passed by the 1st respondent-Divisional Commissioner in Revision Petition No. DEV. RP 123 81-82. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the divisional Commissioner, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing the order as contrary to law in as much as none of the grounds available for removal under sub-sec. (1) of S. 34 of the Act was actually available to the Assistant commissioner. ( 9 ) UNDOUBTEDLY sub-sec. (1) of S. 34 of the Act empowers the Assistant commissioner to pass an order of removal only in the event of a member, chairman or Vice-Chairman is found guilty of mis-conduct or neglect of his duties or incapacity to perform his duties or is persistently remiss in the discharge of his duties. What is misconduct, what is neglect or incapacity to perform the duty or persistent remissness in the discharge of his duties are easy to understand. What is misconduct, what is neglect or incapacity to perform the duty or persistent remissness in the discharge of his duties are easy to understand. There is no separate section specifically dealing with the duties, functions and powers of the chairman of the Village Panchayat. The scheme of the Act and the Rules framed there-under for his election etc. , provide a clue as to what the duties and functions are. He controls the funds along with the secretary. He provides for the Meetings. He is enjoined to call meetings whenever members require either to pass a special resolution or to pass a non-confidence motion against him. He should be the person in whose name the Village Panchayat shall sue or be sued. Even Mr. Raya Reddy learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that these are some of the duties and functions of the Chairman undoubtedly. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, we are essentially concerned with the management of funds apart from mis-utilisation of funds. The petitioner has not denied the charge that he drew amounts from the Bank without the concurrent signature of the Secretary of the. Village panchayat. Nor has he produced any proof before this Court or before the respondents that the ten instalments by which he withdrew the amounts from the Bank actually were disbursed for the cost of the construction of the building for Village Panchayat. Nor has he denied the fact that he did not furnish explanation which was called for by the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk development Board who has supervisory powers over the Village Panchayat. The last mentioned subject 'neglect' may not directly fall under the duties and functions of the Chairman. But the first two mentioned charges, that is, withdrawal of funds without the concurrent signature of the Secretary and the alleged utilisation of the funds for the construction of Village panchayat building instead of godowns, does in my opinion, constitute a clear case of misconduct and the same, gets aggravated when no proof is offered connecting the withdrawals from the bank with any expenditure incurred for the building of the Village Panchayat. Therefore, the Asst. Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was temporary misappropriation of funds. Therefore, the Asst. Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was temporary misappropriation of funds. I am informed by the learned Government Pleader that the matter is still under investigation, whether the misappropriation is temporary or permanent and a separate proceeding in that behalf is pending. In such a situation, this Court would have to come to the eonelusipn that the acts of commission and omission complained of would certainly fall within the ambit of the term 'mis-conduct' and therefore, the Asst. Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion particularly when he had material before him to the effect that the Village Panchayat building was constructed departmentally by the block Development Officer. Therefore, the cost of construction was to be channelled presumably through the Block development Officer and not through the Chairman of the Village Panchayat. ( 11 ) SRI Raya Reddy placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in G. K. Matiadevappa v. State of Karnataka (1) in which S. 14 (4) of the Act came up for consideration. That section is in pari materia with S. 34 of the Act in regard to removal of President, Vice-President and member of the Taluk board. The facts of that case were, that the President therein, drew subsidy for construction of a cattle shed but did not construct the same. That was held to be no part of the duties and functions of the president. Whatever may be the other facts which persuaded the Court to take that view; I. have pointed out that duties and functions are not enumerated in any one of the sections in the Act. But the same can be inferred from the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. One of the functions is to manage the funds of the Village Panchayat concurrently with the Secretary of the Village Panchayat. Not having done that but drawing amounts without concurrent signature does amount to gross-misconduct. The attempt made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to take shelter under the resolution of the Village Panchayat which is at annexure-A to the petition does not absolve the petitioner of the specific charge of misutilisation of the funds and the temporary misappropriation of funds, more so, in the absence of any material furnished by him as to exactly how he disbursed the amounts he withdrew from the Bank. ( 12 ) I, therefore, do not think that this is a fit case in which this Court should interfere with the orders of the Assistant commissioner or for that matter the order of the Divisional Commissioner which merely confirms the order of the Assistant Commissioner as there is no error of law or jurisdiction. The procedure prescribed by the Act for removal of Chairman has been complied with. ( 13 ) IN the result, this Writ Petition is rejected at the stage of preliminary hearing but after notice to respondents. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .