JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 15.6.1996 (Annexure-8) of the Panchayati Raj Department. 3. This order has been passed under section 38 (1)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The order has been made for recovery of the amount of Rs. 5580/- + 6199/- with panel interest from the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has found the charge Nos. 4 and 5 proved against the petitioner which is clear from the operative part of the report starting from page No. 44 and relevant portion is at page No. 50. On the basis of this report this impugned order has been passed. Charges Nos. 4 and 5 read as under:- HINDI MATTER 357775 4. Having gone, through these two charges I am satisfied that it is not the case where the petitioner has made any embezzlement or misappropriation of these amounts. The charge is that the petitioner though has spent money in construction of the tanks but as per the report of junior Engineer excess amount have been spent. That appears that the petitioner would not have been able to satisfy that engineer. 5. Be that as it may, it is not the charge that the petitioner has misappropriated or embezzled this amount. There is possibilities of expenses would have been more as per the engineer but that does not mean nor it can be taken that it is a case where the petitioner has made the money for himself and it is also not the charge. It is also not the case where costs of construction was low but more amount is taken . 6. In the absence of any mala fide or motive or dishonesty on the part of the petitioner or that any allegation of misappropriation of embezzlement of this amount only on the basis of this engineer's estimation this finding recorded against the petitioner is wholly perverse and unjustified. This is the chargesheet against the elected member and this way he cannot be penalised. If he has spent more than the estimated cost matter should have been considered for post facto sanction thereof. It happens every day in Govt. works. 7. This is the chargesheet against the elected member and this way he cannot be penalised. If he has spent more than the estimated cost matter should have been considered for post facto sanction thereof. It happens every day in Govt. works. 7. So far as the term of the office of the Sarpanch is concerned it is already over and fresh election has been held and to that extent I am satisfied with this statement of Mr. Manish Bhandari that this petition has become infructuous but that is not the only matter. The order impugned has fasten the monetary liability upon the petitioner and in case this petition is dismissed as having become infructuous that amount can be recovered from the petitioner which is not recovered so far as the Court has granted stay in his favour. If this order of the State Government in the facts of this case is allowed to stand it will result in causing irreparable loss to the petitioner.As a result of the aforesaid discussion this petition succeeds and the same is allowed and the order dated 15.6.1996 is quashed and set aside. In the facts of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.Petition Allowed. *******