JUDGMENT 1. . - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 18.8.1994 (Anx. 12) whereby finding has been recorded against the petitioner. It has been prayed that the entire proceedings may also be declared lapsed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bijoliya, Dist. Bhilwara for the period June 1988 to June, 1991. It is alleged that a preliminary enquiry was held and a notice (Anx. 7) of institution of intended enquiry was served upon the petitioner. Thereafter a regular enquiry was proceeded against the petitioner. After the enquiry report was submitted by the Chief Executive Officer vide Anx. 9, a notice was served upon the petitioner under section 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to show cause as to why finding should not be recorded against him. The petitioner has further alleged that without considering his reply (Anx. 10 & 11), the respondent proceeded to record a finding against the petitioner vide Anx. 12. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of this writ petition. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 26.10.1994. Notice to show cause was issued on 2.11.1994. In pursuance of the notice, the non-petitioners filed reply on 19.12.1994. In counter, rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner on 22.12.1994. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. I have heard learned counsel for the parties & perused the material on record. 4. Mr. Kela, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order recording finding against the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 5. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has submitted that the respondents afforded full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any reply before the enquiry officer or before the officer recording the finding, so now he cannot be allowed to raise this ground. 6. It is no doubt true that this Court can exercise writ jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution where the authority passes an order in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. It is no doubt true that this Court can exercise writ jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution where the authority passes an order in violation of principles of natural justice. In the instant case, it is to be seen whether the respondents while passing the orders against the petitioners have followed principles of natural justice or not. 7. In the instant case, a preliminary enquiry under the provisions of R. 20 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1961) was conducted and Nayab Tehsildar, Bijoliya was appointed to enquire into the matter, in pursuance of the report made by the Tehsildar, the Collector sent a report to the State Government as provided under sub-rule 4 of the Rule 20 of the Rules of 1961. The State Government sent a notice along with the charge-sheet to the petitioner vide order dated 25.2.1993. The petitioner made a reply to the notice and charge-sheet. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the State Government appointed the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara as an Enquiry Officer under the provisions of sub-rule 3 of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1961. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.8.1993 and next date fixed was 4.9.1993. The petitioner appeared on that date and asked for adjournment which was accepted and the matter was fixed on 13.9.1993. On that date also the petitioner sought adjournment for filing a detailed reply. On 4.10.1993, the petitioner again prayed for adjournment by telephone and the matter was placed on 15.10.1993. On 15.10.1993, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and the matter was decided ex parte, which is clear from a bare perusal of Anx. R/3. According to the respondents, the petitioner was well informed about the fixing of 15.10.1993 by the Enquiry Officer but despite that neither the petitioner filed any reply nor he remained present before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that he has no knowledge of the fixing of the date. However, he has half-heartedly submitted that the petitioner submitted a reply on 4.9.1993 (Anx. 8) before the Enquiry Officer. After perusing the Anx. 8, I am not satisfied that the petitioner would have submitted his reply (Anx.8) before the Enquiry Officer since there is no mention of filing of the reply in the Anx. However, he has half-heartedly submitted that the petitioner submitted a reply on 4.9.1993 (Anx. 8) before the Enquiry Officer. After perusing the Anx. 8, I am not satisfied that the petitioner would have submitted his reply (Anx.8) before the Enquiry Officer since there is no mention of filing of the reply in the Anx. R/3, the proceedings of various dates before the Enquiry Officer. If the petitioner had filed the reply, he could have asked the Enquiry Officer to record the same in the order-sheet but a perusal of the order-sheet shows that no such objection was ever raised by him. Therefore, now at this stage he cannot agitate this point. Likewise, the petitioner failed to file any reply to the notice dated 19.3.1994 issued by the State Government under section 17(4) of the Act whereby the petitioner was asked to submit his reply within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Again as per reply of the State, no reply was received by the State Government and, therefore, the State Govt. proceeded to record finding against the petitioner. Though according to the petitioner as has been alleged by him in the writ petition that he submitted his reply but the petitioner has not placed any material to prove that he filed reply except that he has produced a postal receipt but from that it cannot be inferred that in the alleged registered envelope he submitted his reply particularly when there is no A.D. receipt. Therefore, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice have not been followed. 8. It has been next contended by Mr. Kela that the petitioner has already deposited the amount taken by him as advance with interest in view of Rule 300 of the Rules of 1961. He has also contended that in the matter of issuance of Pattas, the petitioner alone cannot be blamed for irregularities. Though the factum of depositing of amount taken by the petitioner as advance from the Panchayat has not been disputed by Mr. Bishnoi but he has submitted that this alone cannot absolve the petitioner from the charge of misappropriation of public fund. Mr. Bishnoi has further contended that there are irregularities in the issuance of Pattas for which the petitioner alone is liable and relied on Fateh Mohammad Vs. State, decided on 21.12.1994. 9. Bishnoi but he has submitted that this alone cannot absolve the petitioner from the charge of misappropriation of public fund. Mr. Bishnoi has further contended that there are irregularities in the issuance of Pattas for which the petitioner alone is liable and relied on Fateh Mohammad Vs. State, decided on 21.12.1994. 9. The petitioner has not disputed that he took advance from the Panchayat. According to Rule 300 of the Rules of 1961, the amount so taken from Panchayat as advance was required to be deposited within five days but the petitioner has deposited the amount of advance for the years 89-90, 90-91 on 14.3.92 vide Anx. 5 produced by him and the petitioner has also produced Anx. 6 dated 20.3.92 to show that he has deposited interest on the amount of advance along with remaining amount of advance upto 21.6.91. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the fact that he has already deposited the amount of advance particularly when the petitioner remained Sarpanch till the month of June, 1991 whereas according to himself he had deposited the amount on 14.3.1992. As regards the issuance of I'attas also the petitioner who being the Sarpanch was also responsible for the action of the Gram Panchayat and he cannot shift his responsibility on any other person that too at this stage. In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by the State Government after considering the concurrent finding arrived at in the preliminary enquiry and the regular enquiry that the petitioner misappropriated the funds and further that he granted pattas in violation of the Rules, cannot be interfered with in the extraordinary jurisdiction which is not a court of appeal. Under these circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or iregularity and I do not find a fit case wherein extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******