ORDER 1. This intra-Court appeal under section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, arises from the order dated 21.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 10951/2010. 2. It appears that the Gram Panchayat Artaila Jawa, district Rewa has filed the aforesaid writ petition through its Sarpanch for quashing of the order of the Collector dated 2.4.2008, contained in annexure P/7, whereby the Collector, Rewa, exercising powers under section 69 of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1993 Act') has notified the respondent no. 6 as Secretary to the Panchayat in question. The appellant Gram Panchayat has further challenged in the writ petition the order of the Commissioner dated 3.6.2008, contained in annexure P/9, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant, and the order of the Minister of Panchayat dated• 6.7.2010, contained in annexure P/I2, dismissing the revision filed by the appellant against the aforesaid order of the Collector. The aggrieved appellant challenged the aforesaid orders in the writ petition which is dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order under appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that though the respondent no. 6 had been removed from the office of Panchayat Karmi and was not working on the said post, the order of his removal as Panchayat Secretary has been set aside by the authorities and affirmed by the learned Single Judge without properly appreciating the aforesaid aspect. It is submitted that as he had already been removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi, he cannot be reinstated on the post of Panchayat Secretary. 5. We do not find any substance in this contention for the reason that the respondent no. 6 was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi and relying upon annexure R6-1 to annexure R6-6 the learned Single Judge observed that he was discharging the duty as Panchayat Secretary in the year 2008 and he was entrusted with various duties by the Chief Executive Officer and other authorities. 6. Reliance on the resolution dated 3.8.2007, annexure P/3, is also of no help to the appellant. The Gram Panchayat had initiated proceedings under section 92 of the 1993 Act for removal of the Panchayat Karmi respondent no. 6. 6. Reliance on the resolution dated 3.8.2007, annexure P/3, is also of no help to the appellant. The Gram Panchayat had initiated proceedings under section 92 of the 1993 Act for removal of the Panchayat Karmi respondent no. 6. However, there is no material on record to show that in compliance of the aforesaid resolution any action has been taken and the respondent no. 6 has been removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 submitted that he is still continuing and discharging function of the Panchayat Karmi. Thus, we do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal being without merit is dismissed summarily. 7. However, it would be open to the Gram Panchayat to take appropriate action against the respondent no. 6 for not discharging duties properly or that his services are not satisfactory, as observed by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal, after following the presecribed procedure. V.K. Shukla for appellant; Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents; Dilip Pandey for respondent No.6.