JUDGMENT G. C. Bharuka, J. - In this writ application, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the State Government as contained in Memo No. 4084 dated 17th May, 1983 (Annexure 1) by which the petitioner has been removed from the office of pramukh pursuant to powers conferred under section 33 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the' Act '). 2. Admittedly the petitioner bad been elected Pramukh of Ghorasahan Panchayat Samiti (East Champaran). The impugned order has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on issues of malafide as well as improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Government. He has also stated that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Admittedly the petitioner bad been elected Pramukh of Ghorasahan Panchayat Samiti (East Champaran). The impugned order has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on issues of malafide as well as improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Government. He has also stated that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Section 33 of the Act reads as under : ^^33- izeq[k ;k mi&izeq[k dks gVkus ds fy, ljdkj dh ‘kfDr % ¼1½ ;fn jkT; ljdkj dh jk; esa fdlh iapk;r lfefr dk izeq[k ;k mi&izeq[k] iapk;r lfefr ds lqpk: :i ls lapkyu ds fy, jkT; ljdkj }kjk tkjh fy, x;s bl vf/kfu;e ls lqlaxr funs’kksa dk tkucw> dj ikyu u djs ;k ikyu djus ls badkj djs vFkok lkSaih xbZ ‘kfDr;ksa dk nq:i;ksx djs ;k vius drZO;ksa ds ikyu esa dnkpkj dk nks”kh Bgjk;k tk;s rks jkT; ljdkj] ;FkkfLFkr izeq[k ;k mi&izeq[k dks Li”Vhdj.k dk mfpr volj nsxh rFkk bl fo”k; ij ftyk ifj”kn ls lykg ysxh] ;fn mDr lykg ds fy, i= Hkstus dh rkjh[k ls rhl fnuksa ds Hkhrj ftyk ifj”kn dh jk; izkIr gks tk;s rks ml ij fopkj djus ds ckn ;FkkfLFkfr] ,sls izeq[k ;k mi&izeq[k dks vkns’k ds tfj, vius in ls gVk ldsxhA ¼2½ jkT; ljdkj mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fdlh tkap ds nkSjku esa vkns’k nsdj] fdlh izeq[k ;k mi&izeq[k dks eqvRry dj ldsxh] ftlds fo:) tkap ‘kq: dh xbZ gksA lkFk gh og mDr izeq[k ;k mi&izeq[k dks rhl fnuksa ds Hkhrj ;g dkj.k crkus dk volj nsxh fd mlds fo:) eqvRryh dk vkns’k D;ksa u fn;k tk;sA jkT; ljdkj mDr izeq[k ;k mi&izeq[k ij eqvRryh dh vof/k esa iapk;r ds fdlh dk;Z ;k dk;Zokgh esa Hkkx ysus ds laca/k esa Hkh jksd yxk ldsxhA ¼3½ bl /kkjk ds v/khu vius in ls gVk;k x;k dksbZ izeq[k ;k mi&izeq[k] gVk;s tkus dh rkjh[k ls nks o”kZ rd ds fy, izeq[k ;k mi&izeq[k ds :i esa fQj ls fuokZfpr gksus dk ik= u gksxkA** A reading of the Act shows that the power of removal can be exercised by the State Government only under certain specified circumstances and that too (i) after affording an effective opportunity to the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of explaining the charges levelled against him and (ii) after obtaining the opinion of the Zila Parishad. After following this procedure, if the Government feels satisfied that the charges against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh have been proved, then only the State Government can resort to the power of removal. 3. Without addressing to all the issues raised before me, I feel persuaded to quash the impugned order on the simple ground that the State Government bas passed the same without recording any conclusive finding in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is apparent from the impugned order that only by recording a prima facie opinion with regard to the charges in question, the statutory power of removal has been exercised against the petitioner. The drastic power of removal of a duly elected representative of local bodies cannot be exercised in such a casual manner. A statutory authority entrusted with such stringent and drastic powers bas to devote himself more before taking the decisions like the one impugned in the present writ application. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, I hereby quash the impugned order, if the State Government, so desires, it will be open on its part to pass fresh order with regard to removal of the petitioner by following the mandatory provisions of law and granting an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. With these observations, the application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.