JUDGEMENT 1. With the consent of the learned Advocates the Appeal is heard and decided today. 2. This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 4th February 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 2212 of 2011. 3. The appellant-writ petitioner is the Mukhiya of Nirpur Gram Panchayat. By order dated 19th January, 2011 made by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 the appellant has been removed from the office of Mukhiya. It was alleged that in the implementation of Indira Awas Yojana certain irregularities were committed. The beneficiary one Sakina Khatoon opened two bank accounts and recovered the monetary benefit twice. The said Sakina Khatoon could not have opened two different accounts but in the connivance of the Mukhiya. Thus, the appellant is held to have abused the authority. Therefore, the order of removal under 18(5) of the Act. The challenge to the said order before the learned Single Judge has failed. Therefore the present Appeal. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Manglam has appeared for the appellant. He has taken us through the record of the writ petition. He has submitted that it is the Block Development Officer who is In- Charge of the distribution of money under the Indira Awas Yojana. The Mukhiya has no role to play in selection of the beneficiaries or in disbursement of the amount. The appellant has been wrongly roped in and has wrongly been removed from the office. 5. In support of his arguments, Mr. Manglam has relied upon the judgments in the matters of Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Others [ (2001)6 SCC 260 ]; of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Another (A.I.R. 1974 SC 555); of East Coast Railway & Another vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Others [ (2010)7 SCC 678 )] and of Ramesh Chander & Others vs. Delhi Administration & Others [ (1996)10 SCC 409 ]. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Choubey has appeared for the respondents. He has relied upon the enquiry report (Annexure-2 to the petition) and has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 7. We have perused the records. It does appear that there were certain inregularities committed in selection of the beneficiaries and in disbursement of the money. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Choubey has appeared for the respondents. He has relied upon the enquiry report (Annexure-2 to the petition) and has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 7. We have perused the records. It does appear that there were certain inregularities committed in selection of the beneficiaries and in disbursement of the money. However, the enquiry report does not indicate that the appellant was in any way involved in any of the irregularities referred to in the order. The appellant has been held liable on a mere conjecture that without his connivance, the above referred Sakina Khatoon could not have received the double benefit. In the enquiry report there is not even the reference connecting any of the irregularities to the present appellant, the Mukhiya. 8. in our view, in absence of a definite finding of irregularity committed by the appellant or his involvement in any of the incidences referred to in the enquiry report, the appellant could not have been held guilty of any of the said irregularities nor could he have been removed from the office on conjecture or belief. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has also erred in believing what the State Government held on conjecture and belief. 9. For the aforesaid reason, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 4th February, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 2212 of 2011 is allowed. The order dated 19th January, 2011 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), made by the State Government under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. 2006 to remove the appellant from the office of the Mukhiya, Nirpur Gram Panchayat District Bhabua is quashed and set aside. 10. The legal consequences shall follow. The parties will bear their own cost. 11. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.