Judgment Rajan Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 31st March, 2010 (Annexure P-4), passed by respondent No.1 as well as order dated 19th January, 2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.2, whereby it was directed that the petitioner be removed from the post of Sarpanch. 2. Brief factual background of the case is that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of village Manana, District Panipat in the election held in March, 2005. A show cause notice dated 12th January, 2009 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had embezzled Panchayat funds. Fifteen different allegations were levelled against the petitioner. After regular enquiry, it was found that petitioner was guilty of 12 allegations and thus, vide order dated 19th January, 2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner preferred appeal under Section 51 (5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to be as "the Act") before respondent No.1. The same was, however, dismissed by a detailed order dated 31st March, 2010. Aggrieved, the present petition has been preferred before this court seeking quashing of impugned orders, Annexure P-3 and P-4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that all the allegations against the petitioner are general and vague and he being elected representative of the people could not have been removed in such flimsy grounds. He has also argued that there was no documentary evidence to show that the petitioner was guilty of alleged embezzlement. This apart, the petitioner has not incurred any disqualification in terms of Section 175 of the Act thus could not have been removed from the post of Sarpanch. According to him, the impugned orders are unsustainable as copy of preliminary enquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 5. It is evident that the petitioner was charged for causing loss to the Gram Panchayat on fifteen different counts. A show cause notice was issued to him, to which he had filed a detailed reply. After hearing the petitioner and considering all aspects of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that 12 allegations of embezzlement were proved against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to him, to which he had filed a detailed reply. After hearing the petitioner and considering all aspects of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that 12 allegations of embezzlement were proved against the petitioner. On this basis, vide order dated 19th January, 2010, he directed the removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Financial Commissioner came to the same conclusion and upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any legal infirmity with the impugned orders. Admittedly, the petitioner was found guilty of embezzling Panchayat funds in a regular enquiry conducted pursuant to a show cause notice. Learned counsel has not been able to show any procedural defect in the conduct of enquiry proceedings. The only ground raised is that copy of preliminary enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. However, learned counsel has not been able to show as to what prejudice was caused to the petitioner by non-supply of enquiry report. 6. I am, thus, of the considered view that the petition is devoid of merit and no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction of this court. Dismissed.