JUDGEMENT 1. This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, arises out of the judgment and order dated 1st September, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 9374 of 2010*. The appellant before us is the writ petitioner. 2. The writ petitioner was elected as the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, Basantpur, Block, Amnour, District, Saran at Chapra. By order dated 27th May, 2010 made by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the writ petitioner was removed from the office of the Mukhiya. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed above C.W.J.C. No. 9374 of 2010 before this Court. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. Therefore, the present appeal. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam has appeared for the appellant writ petitioner. He has submitted that the impugned order of removal of the writ petitioner from the post of the Mukhiya has been made without application of mind and without following due procedure. He has submitted that there was no cause to take action against the writ petitioner under Section 18(5) of the Act. He has submitted that the impugned order of removal has been made on bare reliance on the report made by the Gram Panchayat Secretary in respect of the funds disbursed under the Indira Awaas Yojna. He has submitted that it is the Block Development Officer who is empowered to disburse the funds under the Indira Awaas Yojna. The Mukhiya of a Gram Panchayat has no role to play. He has submitted that the action taken against the writ petitioner is vindictive as it is based on a statement made by some 3 to 4 persons. 5. Mr. Mangalam has submitted that in the constituency of ten thousand persons, only four persons had complaint against the writ petitioner and on a bare complaint, action has been taken against the writ petitioner. He has also submitted that the report made by the District Magistrate in connection with the complaint made by four of the beneficiaries had not been supplied to the writ petitioner. Therefore also, the order is vitiated. 6. He has next submitted that the reply submitted by the writ petitioner to the show cause notice has not been considered and has been brushed aside in one sentence. Therefore also, the order is vitiated. 6. He has next submitted that the reply submitted by the writ petitioner to the show cause notice has not been considered and has been brushed aside in one sentence. A democratically elected Mukhiya cannot be removed unceremoniously. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharda Kailash Mittal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [ (2010)2 SCC 319 ]. He has referred to the judgment in the matter of Jarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and Others [ (2001)6 SCC 260 ]. He has also referred to the judgments of this Court in the matters of Navin Thakur vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [ 2010(1) PLJR 754 ]; of Abhinyata Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., [ 2010 (2) PLJR 119 ]; and of Sunita Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [ 2010(2) PLJR 533 ]. 7. The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Mangalam and the judgment in the matter of Sharda Kailash Mittal (supra). The learned Single Judge has held that the District Magistrate and the Panchayati Raj Department had taken all due steps in the matter and the impugned order of removal had been passed after following all the formalities including the issuance of show cause notice to the writ petitioner and also after considering the show cause of the petitioner. Considering the nature of allegations made against the writ petitioner and the fact that due formalities were complied with, the petition was dismissed. 8. We are in agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. The High Court, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution, would not reappreciate the evidence to substitute the findings recorded by the authority below by that of its own. Suffice it to say that the statutory requirements were complied with. The writ petitioner had been given due opportunity to meet with the allegations made against him. The report of the District Magistrate alongwith the enclosures was also furnished to the petitioner. 9. In the matter of Sharda Kailash Mittal (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to set aside the order of removal of the President of the Nagar Palika under Section 41(8) of the M.P. Municipal Act, 1961. The report of the District Magistrate alongwith the enclosures was also furnished to the petitioner. 9. In the matter of Sharda Kailash Mittal (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to set aside the order of removal of the President of the Nagar Palika under Section 41(8) of the M.P. Municipal Act, 1961. The Honble Court found that the allegations made against the President were mere irregularities and were not grave illegality. The charge of financial loss to the Palika could not be proved. As we have observed hereinabove, the charges imputed against the writ petitioner were grave and cannot be compared with the facts of the case before the Honble Supreme Court. 10. It may a|so be noted that the first information report has also been filed against the writ petitioner which is registered as Amnour P.S. Case No. 67 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 11. In above view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 12. The appeal is dismissed in limine. 13. Interlocutory Application No. 8552 of 2010 stands disposed of.