JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dhigaria Bhim, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa. A preliminary enquiry about his conduct as Sarpunch was conducted under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short `the Rules') and that preliminary enquiry report was submitted before the State Government and the State Government authorised the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa as the Enquiry Officer to conduct a final enquiry in accordance with Rule 21 of the Rules, because the State Government was not satisfied after receiving the report of preliminary enquiry to drop the proceedings. In the final enquiry the Enquiring Authority has to furnish to the person charged, a copy of the statement of allegations alongwith a notice calling upon him to show cause in writing why they should not be enquired into. 2. In reply to this notice the Sarpanch submitted that during preliminary enquiry proceedings reply was filed before the State Government against the report of the preliminary enquiry and that reply may be treated as reply to the statement of charges against him. Thereafter, instead of following the procedure contained in sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 21 of the Rules, the Sub Divisional Officer, Dausa proceeded to consider the report of preliminary enquiry and the reply of Sarpanch filed before the State Government when he was called upon to explain on the basis of the report of preliminary enquiry and did not hold any independent enquiry and no evidence was recorded, oral or documentary. Final report was submitted to the Government for removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. Thereafter the State Government again gave notice to the petitioner to file reply to the final report and thereafter proceeded to hold that he was guilty of all the charges framed against him. 3. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the order by which the petitioner has been held guilty of the charges, wherein besides the aforesaid legal proposition, mala fides have been raised. Since the writ petition can be disposed of on the legal proposition, which could not be controverted by the counsel for respondents that procedure contained in Rule 21 of the Rules and in particular sub-rules (3) and (4) with regard to recording of evidence, taking documents on record in the final enquiry, had to be followed, the impugned orders cannot be allowed to stand. 4. Accordingly we allow the writ petition, quash the order of the State Government dated 17.3.94 without going into the question of male fides, which are left open to be gone into in the appropriate state, with the direction that if fresh enquiry is held against the petitioner, the mandatory procedure contained in Rule 21 of the Rules will be followed meticulously and then order may be passed on the same, if the Government is so advised to do so.Petition allowed. *******