Honble YAMIN, J.–Petitioner Purna Ram was a duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sardi Tehsil Ladnu District Nagaur. Earlier he was elected as Sarpanch of this panchayat in the year 1958 to 1962, 1966 and 1978 to 1988. Due to political rivalry one Bhanwarlal son of Chunnilal submitted a complaint against him before the respondents wherein he alleged some irregularities against the petitio- ner. It was also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had misused his office of Sarpanch and committed several irregularities in construction work and also received money from him and different persons for the construction work as well as in purchasing fodder but the same amount was not deposited in the panchayat account. Thus, according to complaint the petitioner had misappropriated pancha- yat fund. On this complaint without any preliminary inquiry respondents prepared charges against the petitioner and called for his explanation by letter dated 29.11.96. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Without considering same an order was issued to hold inquiry which is Anx.3 on record. In pursuance of the order dated 28.12.96 respondent No.2, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur was appointed as inquiry officer. The Chief Executive Officer, Nagaur issued a registered letter to the petitioner on 21.7.97 (Anx.4) and the petitioner appeared before her and sought time to submit his reply. The date was fixed as 28.8.97. But on that date the Chief Executive Officer was on leave. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 19.9.97. On 19.9.97 again the case was adjourned and the respondents fixed next date as 15.10.97 for calling witnesses No.1 to 19 from complainant side. On 15.10.97 the petitioner presented himself before the respondents office prior to her presence at 10.30 a.m. In absence of the petitioner the respondent No.2 recorded statements of three witnesses viz. Jasraj, Nandlal and Man Singh. The petitioner re- quested the respondent that he wanted to cross examine them but no time was allowed and respondent did not recall these witnesses. Further more, the Chief Executive Officer herself was not present when petitioner appeared and next date was fixed as 24.10.1997. Different dates were further given in the inquiry and on 18.11.1997 respondent Chief Executive Officer passed an order for recording state- ments and taking reply of the petitioner on 24.11.1997 at camp Sardi. On 24.11.97 the Chief Executive Officer could not reach at village Sardi and no further date was fixed. Different dates were further given in the inquiry and on 18.11.1997 respondent Chief Executive Officer passed an order for recording state- ments and taking reply of the petitioner on 24.11.1997 at camp Sardi. On 24.11.97 the Chief Executive Officer could not reach at village Sardi and no further date was fixed. Neither any information was given to the petitioner. In those days the news was that the mother-in-law of the Chief Executive Officer had expired, therefore, she had gone on leave. Thereafter no specific date was fixed for recording of state- ments of other witnesses and no reply was taken and no statements of the petitioners witnesses were recorded by the respondents. (2). Respondent Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur appointed another inquiry officer namely Panchayat Extension Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur Shri Nathu Lal Sharma who initiated the inquiry and recorded statements of many witnesses and thereafter submitted inquiry report. A copy of the enquiry report together the statements of the witnesses Anx.6 on record. The Panchayat Extension Officer also submitted a list of the witnesses whose statements were recorded by him on 27.12.1997. The petitioner also submitted an application before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad requesting therein that he should be allowed to submit his reply and further requesting for cross examination of witnesses Jasraj, Nandlal and Man Singh. But no opportunity was given. However, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad did not hold proper inquiry and yet submitted inquiry report to the State Government. The State Government sent a letter to the petitioner with the inquiry report on 28.3.98 holding him guilty of misconduct to show cause. The petitioner approached the State Government on 24.4.98 and requested for inspection of file and also submitted an application for supplying copies of certain documents but the requests were turned down. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 28.3.98 and requested that inspite of his application for supplying certified copies of the documents and inspection of file, the request of the petitioner had been turned down, therefore, he was unable to submit his reply in detail. However, he submitted reply to the respondents. A copy of the reply is Anx.11. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 28.3.98 and requested that inspite of his application for supplying certified copies of the documents and inspection of file, the request of the petitioner had been turned down, therefore, he was unable to submit his reply in detail. However, he submitted reply to the respondents. A copy of the reply is Anx.11. On the inquiry report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur on the basis of inquiry prepared by Panchayat Extension Officer, the respondent State Government has recorded that the charges against the petitioner have been proved and inspite of request of the petitioner to submit reply after giving required certified copies of the documents, passed order on 16.6.98 for removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch using powers under Section 38(1)(b) of the Act. The petitioner has challenged this order in this writ petition. (3). The respondents submitted their reply wherein they have pleaded that the petitioner has made false averments in the writ petition and concealed material facts. The petitioner never submitted any application to the respondent No.3 for inspection of file or for obtaining certain documents. The petitioner moved an application before the respondent No.2 on 25.4.98 for certain documents, copies of which were supplied to him on 25.4.98 itself. It has also been averred that no re- ply was submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of notice dated 28.3.98. In fact the petitioner had filed a detailed reply in about four pages on 28.3.98 in response to the notice dated 28.3.98. The petitioner did not move any application on 15.10.97 before the Chief Executive Officer. She has not been made a party. These were the preliminary objections raised by the respondents. So far as merits are concerned, it has been averred that the preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Collector, Nagaur filed his preliminary inquiry report to the State Government on 19.9.96. The allegations levelled about the conduct and proceedings have not been admitted and it has been averred that the statements of some of the witnesses were recorded by the Panchayat Extension Officer and the Gram Sewak but they were recorded with the consent of the petitioner in presence of the petitioner himself. Even his own statement was recorded by the Panchayat Extension Officer. Even his own statement was recorded by the Panchayat Extension Officer. The Panchayat Extension Officer has simply submitted the summary of the statements of the witnesses to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nag- aur. He has not submitted any inquiry report to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur. The petitioner never made any submission to recall the witnesses and the Chief Executive Officer after examining the record and considering all the statements of witnesses submitted report to the State Government. It has been submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for any relief. (4). I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record. (5). Earlier writ petition No.1870/98 was filed by the petitioner challenging the inquiry report prepared by the respondents. But since the Government passed order about his removal, the same was dismissed as having become infructuous on 30.7.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the request, the petitioner was not allowed the chance to cross examine the witnesses whose statements were recorded in his absence. He also submitted that the Panchayat Extension Officer could not be authorised to hold inquiry. He submitted that it was the State Government which ordered and appointed the respondent No.2 as inquiry officer to hold inquiry against the petitioner and the Chief Executive Officer could not have delegated his powers to the Panchayat Extension Officer. Therefore, it has been submitted that the whole inquiry is vitiated and should be set aside. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given full opportunity to defend himself and as such the inquiry is vitiated. (6). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has averred incorrect facts in the petition and as such the writ petition should be dismissed. He also submitted that the Panchayat Extension Officer was asked simply to record statements of some witnesses and he did so and on the basis of those statements he submitted his re- port to the respondent No.2. According to him, it was not a inquiry report and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. He also submitted that the Panchayat Extension Officer was asked simply to record statements of some witnesses and he did so and on the basis of those statements he submitted his re- port to the respondent No.2. According to him, it was not a inquiry report and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. According to him it is the inquiry report of the respondent No.3 which is available at page 63 of the record and on the basis of this report the Government removed the petitioner. He has vehemently submitted that the petition should be dismissed. (7). I will not enter into the controversy of non supply of copies or non inspection of the record of the petitioner. But certainly it can very well be said that the respondent No.2 could not have delegated the powers to the Panchayat Extension Officer in order to hold inquiry and submit report on the basis of statements. To say that the Panchayat Extension Officer simply recorded the statements before the petitioner and even statement of petitioner himself was recorded by the Panchayat Extension Officer and no objection was raised by the petitioner, is no justification, specially when the respondent No.2 was specifically directed by the State Government to hold inquiry. The powers given to the respondent No.2 could not have been delegated by him in any manner. The argument of the learned cou- nsel for the respondents that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and that he never objected to this procedure, has no substance because when the Panchayat Extension Officer inherently lacked jurisdiction even if the petitioner would have given consent, it would not validate the action of the Panchayat Extension Officer. It is settled law that when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction, the order passed or the work done by the authority which lacks jurisdiction is invalid. I say total lack of jurisdiction of Panchayat Extension Officer because Section 38 of the Act does not contemplate the delegation of any power to anyone else. In Narain Singh vs. District Development Officer (1), such a matter was brought up under the old Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 in which inquiry was conducted by Assistant District Development Officer instead of District Development Officer and it was held that the inquiry conducted cannot be held to be valid. (8). In Narain Singh vs. District Development Officer (1), such a matter was brought up under the old Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 in which inquiry was conducted by Assistant District Development Officer instead of District Development Officer and it was held that the inquiry conducted cannot be held to be valid. (8). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and the Honble Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma (2), has laid down the principles emerging from the case law in order to test the prejudice. I have gone through these tests and I feel that the petitioner has definitely been prejudiced by the action of the Panchayat Extension Officer who was not authorised to hold inquiry and even then he did make inquiry under the orders of the respondent No.2. The petitioner has been further prejudiced because he could not cross examine certain witnesses viz. Jasraj, Nandlal and Man Singh. His averment is that he appeared at 10.30 before inquiry officer but she herself was not present and then he again went and by that time the statements of three witnesses were recorded and he was not given any opportunity of cross examining these witnesses. This has been stated on oath by the petitioner in his affidavit. In the reply the respondents have submitted that the petitioner did not appear in the office of the Chief Executive Officer upto 12.30. p.m. and that the petitioner had not informed the inquiry officer that he would come late. In absence of any information the inquiry officer proceeded with recording of the statements of Jasraj, Nandal and Man Singh. It has been stated in the reply that on 15.10.97 the inquiry officer was present in the office and the statements of Jasraj, Nandlal and Man Singh were recorded by her. When the allegation of the petitioner is that he appeared in the office of the inquiry officer at. 10.30 on 15.10.97 but she was not present at that time and this fact has not been controverted by any affidavit of the inquiry officer herself, what the petitioner says, will be accepted as it is not contro- verted on oath. When the allegation of the petitioner is that he appeared in the office of the inquiry officer at. 10.30 on 15.10.97 but she was not present at that time and this fact has not been controverted by any affidavit of the inquiry officer herself, what the petitioner says, will be accepted as it is not contro- verted on oath. The petitioner has put Anx.8 on record, a copy of his application dated 15.10.97, in which he requested the Inquiry Officer that he had come at 12.30 p.m. and that these witnesses may be recalled and he may be given an opportunity to cross examine them. The counsel for the respondents has submitted that no such application is on record. But when the petitioner has averred so and he is supported by his affidavit and there is no affidavit of the inquiry officer or clerk who was attending the proceedings at that time on 15.10.1997, it will be taken as uncontroverted that the petitioner had moved such an application. The inquiry officer, it appears, has taken the inquiry in a very casual manner which was not expected from a senior officer of R.A.S. cadre. She not only recorded the statements of same witnesses in absence of the petitioner but also did not allow him to cross examine. She then passed the inquiry without any authority to the Panchayat Extension Officer to conduct it. All these facts have definitely prejudiced the petitioner. So the inquiry is vitiated on these material grounds. (9). Learned counsel for the respondents cited Board of Management of S.V.T. Educational Institution and another vs. A. Raghupathy Bhat and others (3), and submitted that the inquiry can be held afresh from stage illegality was found committed. On the basis of this citation his contention is that if this court comes to the conclusion that the Panchayat Extension Officer could not have conducted inquiry as he was not authorised then fresh inquiry may be held from the stage it was handed over to the Panchayat Extension Officer. He submitted that if the inquiry report is found to be faulty on this ground it is now settled law that when the enquiry was found to be faulty, it could not be proper that the petitioner may be allowed to work as Sarpanch. In this regard he has cited State of Punjab and others vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy (4). (10). In this regard he has cited State of Punjab and others vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy (4). (10). So far as the request of the learned counsel for the respondents to start inquiry from the stage when it was given to Panchayat Extension Officer is concerned, it is not proper because even before that the three witnesses were examined by the inquiry officer who were not cross examined by the petitioner and their non cross examination has materially prejudiced the petitioner. So far as his second request that during the inquiry petitioner may not be allowed to work as Sarpanch is concerned, it is also of no help to the respondents because this Court will not be changing the position as it was at the time when inquiry had started. (11). In view of above discussion, I hold that the inquiry is vitiated right from 15.10.1997 because of non cross examination of material witnesses on that date and because the inquiry officer without any authority handed over the inquiry to the Panchayat Extension Officer who submitted his report on the basis of which the inquiry officer submitted her report to the State Government. (12). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order No. F3/AJ/5/Inquiry/Nagaur/96/1997-2003 dated 16.6.1998 (Anx.12) and the inquiry report submit- ted by the respondent No.2 are quashed. The respondents may hold inquiry afresh. No orders as to costs.