R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the order of the Additional development Commissioner dated 11-4-1994 passed in Appeal under Sec. 49 (3) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, dismissing the appeal which was preferred against the order of the District Development Officer, Bharuch, removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of Pratapnagar Gram Panchayat. ( 2 ) A show-cause notice was given to the petitioner on 27-4-1992 under sec. 49 (1) of the said Act, for giving him an opportunity of being heard in connection with the proposed action. It was alleged in the show-cause notice that the petitioner had not taken any step for recovery of the amount of rs. 51,000/- from one Mahendrabhai Vasava, who was given "octroi Ijara" for the year 1989-90 for a sum of Rs. 76,000. 00. It was alleged that the petitioner had not taken any action as per the conditions of "octroi Ijara" against the contractor and had not cancelled the contract as a result of which a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 had remained outstanding and this was not recovered by the petitioner. The second allegation was that the "octroi Ijara" for the year 1991-92 was given for Rs. 1,11,315. 00 to one Mangalbhai Jesangbhai Vasava by the Panchayat, but only a sum of Rs. 28,000. 00 was recovered from him till 18-10-1991 though as per the conditions of the auction the contractor was required to pay the sum in 12 equal monthly instalments. Despite the fact that the contractor had not paid the amount as per the conditions of the "octroi Ijara", the petitioner did not take any action of cancelling his contract as per the terms thereof. The third allegation was that under the Rules though meeting of the Gramsabha is required to be called twice a year the petitioner had not called the meeting after 17-5-1991. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed his reply on 11-5-1992 to the show-cause notice and contended as regards the first allegation that the "ijaradar" was given a notice by him on 4-8-1989 for paying the instalments due for the months of April, May, June and July of 1989. As some amounts were paid by the "ijaradar" an action for cancellation of the contract was not taken. As some amounts were paid by the "ijaradar" an action for cancellation of the contract was not taken. Furthermore, in the meeting of the General body dated 22-2-1990 a resolution was passed for giving such notice to the (1) 1960 GLR 260 "ijaradar". As regards the second allegation relating to the "octroi Ijara" for the year 1991-92, the petitioner stated that he had given the notices dated 3-8-1991 and 23-10-1991 to the "ijaradar" to pay the instalments of octroi. For the third allegation the petitioner stated that he had called for the First Meeting of Gramsabha on 17-5-1991 and the second meeting on 31-12-1991 for which the agenda was prepared on 23-5-1991. The second meeting could not be convened for want of quorum and therefore, was adjourned. It is thus contended that the petitioner had duly discharged his duties. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as regards the first allegation action could not be taken under Sec. 49 (1) of the said Act since the earlier tenure of the petitioner as a Sarpanch had expired on 30-9-1991 and the "octroi Ijara" in question was for the period from 1-4-1989 to 31-3-1990. It was submitted that the misconduct envisaged under Sec. 49 (1) of the said Act ought to be committed during the tenure of the office and no action can be taken in respect of the misconduct of a Sarpanch after the tenure of his office under the said provision. Reliance was sought to be placed in support of this submission on a decision in the case of Chhanalal A. Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1960) i GLR 260, in which in the context of the provisions of Sec. 26 (1) of the Bombay local Boards Act, 1923, this Court held that the misconduct of which Sec. 26 speaks was misconduct during the term of office and not at any point or period of time beyond and before that term of office. Under Sec. 26 (1) of the Bombay local Boards Act, 1923, it was provided that the President or Vice-President shall be removable from office by the State Government for misconduct or neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty. Under Sec. 26 (1) of the Bombay local Boards Act, 1923, it was provided that the President or Vice-President shall be removable from office by the State Government for misconduct or neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty. ( 5 ) UNDER Sec. 49 (1) of the said Act, the competent authority is empowered to remove from office a Sarpanch after giving him an opportunity of being heard and after giving due notice in that behalf to the Panchayat and after inquiry as it deems necessary, if such Sarpanch has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or any disgraceful conduct or abuses his powers or makes persistent default in the performance of his duties and functions under the Act or has become incapable of performing his duties under the Act. Even where such a Sarpanch has resigned or otherwise ceased to hold any office he can be disqualified for a period not exceeding four years provided that the competent authority takes an action within six months from the date on which he has resigned or has ceased to hold the office as provided in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 49 of the said Act. Therefore, under the Scheme of Sec. 49 (2) of the said Act, a Sarpanch can be proceeded against for misconduct after he ceases to hold office and in such a case the misconduct would obviously relate to the period within the tenure of his office. In view of this specific provision, it cannot be said that no action can be taken against the sarpanch under Sec. 49 in respect of misconduct committed by him during his tenure after he ceases to hold office. The only limitation is that the action should be taken within six months of his having ceased to hold office and the consequence will be disqualification for a period of four years. In view this specific provision under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, the decision of this Court in the case of chhanalal A. Patel (supra) cannot help the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT was then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned action was taken against the petitioner under Sec. 49 (1) of the said Act and not under Sec. 49 (2 ). The earlier tenure of the petitioner came to an end on 30-9-1991. ( 6 ) IT was then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned action was taken against the petitioner under Sec. 49 (1) of the said Act and not under Sec. 49 (2 ). The earlier tenure of the petitioner came to an end on 30-9-1991. But, he became a Sarpanch again for a fresh tenure due to newly elected body coming into force from 1-10-1991 as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner in respect of the "ijara" contract of 1989-90 was that as the petitioner had not cancelled the Ijara for violation of the conditions by the contractor, an amount of Rs. 51,000. 00 remained outstanding which was not recovered by the petitioner till the date of the show-cause notice, i. e. , 27-4-1992. Therefore, the thrust of the allegation was that the petitioner failed in the discharge of his duties of effecting the recovery of Rs. 51,000. 00 which had fallen due since long even after the petitioners new tenure began from 1-10-1991. The amount of Rs. 51,000. 00 had remained due at the end of the "octroi Ijara" of 1989-90, i. e. , 31-3-1990. The petitioner did not take any action for recovery of the amount after that date. Since he continued to be a Sarpanch it was his duty even during his new tenure to effect the recovery of the dues of the Panchayat. But he made no attempt to do so. The competent authority has on this ground found the petitioner to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties even during his fresh tenure. There was ample justification for the competent authority and the appellate authority for coming to the said conclusion. ( 7 ) THE competent authority has clearly found that even in respect of the "ijara" for the year 1991-92 the petitioner did not take any action by cancelling the contract for violation of the terms and conditions thereof and did not take any action for recovery of the amount from the "ijaradar" though as against the octroi amount of Rs. 1,11,315. 00 payable under the contract only Rs. 28,000. 00 were paid. This also shows that the petitioner had persistently defaulted in the discharge of his duties. The findings of the competent authority and the appellate authority on this count also calls for no interference. 1,11,315. 00 payable under the contract only Rs. 28,000. 00 were paid. This also shows that the petitioner had persistently defaulted in the discharge of his duties. The findings of the competent authority and the appellate authority on this count also calls for no interference. ( 8 ) THE third ground which was alleged against the petitioner is that he had not summoned the second Gramsabha meeting after 17-5-1990 and therefore, he failed to discharge his duties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context argued that the second tenure, i. e. , fresh tenure of the newly elected body started from 1-10-1991 and therefore, there was no sufficient time till the end of the calendar year, i. e. , 31-12-1991 for the petitioner to again call the second meeting, because, he had already circulated the agenda on 23-12-1991 callling for the second meeting of Gramsabha on 31-12-1991, but the meeting could not be convened due to want of quorum. Under Sec. 83 (1) of the said Act, it was provided that there shall be held at least two ordinary meetings of the Gramsabha every year on such date, at such time and place, as may be prescribed at the interval of atleast three months between the two ordinary meetings. Here the word year in Sec. 83 (1) does not mean a calendar year as sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner. The word year here except in the case of term of Panchayat, means the year commencing on the First Day of April unless another date is specified by the State Government by a notification in the Official Gazette in view of the definition of year contained in sub-sec. (36) of Sec. 2 of the said Act. Since the meeting could not be convened on 31-12-1991 for want of quorum it was incumbent upon the Sarpanch - Petitioner to convene the meeting again as he was required to call two ordinary meetings between 1st April 1991 and 31st March 1992. As provided by Rule 3 of the Gujarat Gram Panchayat (Gramsabha Meetings and Functions) Rules, 1964, subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 83 of the said Act the second ordinary meeting of the Gram Panchayat shall be held on such date and at such time and place, as may be fixed by the Sarpanch or in his absence by the Up-Sarpanch. (1) of Sec. 83 of the said Act the second ordinary meeting of the Gram Panchayat shall be held on such date and at such time and place, as may be fixed by the Sarpanch or in his absence by the Up-Sarpanch. When there is no quorum for a meeting of the Gramsabha and the meeting is adjourned for want of quorum, no quorum shall be necessary for the adjourned meeting, but, a fresh notice of the adjourned meeting was required to be given by petitioner in view of Rule 9 (2) of the said Rules. The petitioner failed to call such meeting of the Gramsabha and on this ground he is found to be guilty of failure of discharge of his duty by the competent authority and the appellate authority which conclusion was wholly justified. ( 9 ) THE executive functions are vested in the Sarpanch under Sec. 47 (1) of the said Act. The Sarpanch holds a responsible office and any conduct which would be in complete disregard of his duties and responsibilities under the Act or which is inconsistent or incompatible with the express or implied conditions of his office would amount to a misconduct in the discharge of his duties under Sec. 49 (1) of the said Act. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, the reasoning and conclusions reached by the competent authority and the appellate authority for removing the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch are valid and in accordance with law and warrant no interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. .