JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged (Annexure 1) dated 21st April, 1986, under which the Additional District Development Officer, Alwar Under Section 17(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short the 'Act') has decided that the office of the Sarpanch which the petitioner was holding is vacant. 2. The petitioner is a Law Graduate and is a practicing Lawyer and elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Gadoj in District Alwar in the election that had taken place in the year 1981. On 3rd March, 1986, Bhagirath Singh Yadav Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat alongwith five other Panchs presented an application to the Additional District Development Officer, Alwar that the Sarpanch has absented himself from five succeeding meetings of Panchayat, which meetings had been held on a requisition by Vikash Adhikari. The petitioner was absent from five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat without any information in writing and as such his seat has become vacant. A resolution was passed by Panchayat and that was forwarded to the Additional District Development Officer and he gave a notice and the petitioner, who submitted a reply wherein it was stated that he had convened the meetings of the Panchayat and has also attended them. A false charge of not attending the meetings without informing in writing has been levelled against him The Additional District Development enquired into the matter and though came to the conclusion that the petitioner only convened 2 meetings of the Panchayat after being elected and thereafter did not convene any meeting, also came to the conclusion that the charge of not attending five consecutive meeting convened by the Vikas Adhikari is also not made out. He further held that from the perusal of the record it is established that Bhagirath Singh Sarpanch as well as Up-Sarpanch Shri Ram Yadav and Panchas sarva Shri Bansi, Sukh Dev, Suraj Bhan and Rameshwar did not attend five consecutive meetings of this Panchayat and their seats were declared vacant Under Section 17 of the Panchayat Act. 3. A reply to the show cause notice has been filed. In the reply it has been stated that on receipt of resolution of the Panchayat as enquiry was made by the Additional District Development Officer and he declared the seats of the petitioner and other vacant. 4. 3. A reply to the show cause notice has been filed. In the reply it has been stated that on receipt of resolution of the Panchayat as enquiry was made by the Additional District Development Officer and he declared the seats of the petitioner and other vacant. 4. In my opinion this writ petition deserves to be allowed Under Section 17(2) of the Act if any Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch or Panch during the term of his office absents himself from five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat without giving information in writing to the Panchayat he shall cease to be such Panch. Sarpanch or UP-Sarpanch and his seat shall become vacant Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short the 'rules') has been framed to give effect to the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. While Section 1(2) of the Act is mandatory, the rule is only directory and provides a safeguard against the misuse of power by the Sarpanch. If any Sarpanch or Up- Sarpatnch or such Panch absents himself from four consecutive meetings of the Panchayat, the Sarpanch, or in his absence, the Up-Sarpanch or any other presiding Panch, shall give to the absentee a notice in writing as soon as may be after the close of the fourth meeting and before the fifth meeting takes place, stating that he has inspite of due notice not attended four immediately preceding meetings held on the dates to be stated in the notice and that his seat shall become vacant if he does not attend the fifth meeting of which due notice shall be received by him due in course of time. Even the Additional District Development Officer in his enquiry report and decision which has been challenged held that no regular meetings of the Panchayat were held It was also held that even the meetings held under the Up-Sarpanch were not in accordance with law. But on the perusal of the record he held that not only the petitioner but even others have absented themselves for five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat without informing in writing. The learned Additional District Development officer contradicted himself at more than one place. But on the perusal of the record he held that not only the petitioner but even others have absented themselves for five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat without informing in writing. The learned Additional District Development officer contradicted himself at more than one place. After havnig come to a definite finding that the meetings from which the petitioner is said to have been absent or which the petitioner did rot attend, did not take place or were irregular meetings, he could not have thereafter proceeded and held that some of the meetings of the Panchayat were regular and on the basis of them he could not have held that the seat of Sarpanch the petitioner as well as other Parchas named above become vacant. Under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12, once after notice of the fifth consecutive meeting is served on the Panch Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch and the notice of the date of the fifth meeting as aforesaid was duly served on the absentee the Panchayat shall pass a resolution to the effect that the absentee has remained absent on five consecutive meetings and forward a copy of the resolution together with the record of the meeting issued to the absentee and any other papers that may be relevant, to the Dy. D.D. O with the re-commendation. On receipt of record referred to in Clause (4), the Deputy District Development Officer may upon perusing the record and considering the recommendation of the Panchayat and after making such further enquiry he may sonsider necessary and after giving the absentee an opportunity of being heard declare such seat to have become vacant or make such other order as he may think proper in the circumstances of the case. Thus in my opinion, while considering a resolution of the Panchayat the District Development Officer or Additional District Development Officer, as the case may be has to see that the fifth meeting which Panch, Up-Sarpanch is said to have been absented was convened or not. It has to confine itself to the dates of the meetings in the resolution itself and to no other meetings of the Panchayat. 5. The order (Annex. 1) dated 21-4-1986 is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order (Annex.1) dated 21-4-1986 is set-aside. Costs made easy.Writ Allowed. *******