JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. 2. The petitioner, an elected Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Madhopur, District-Saran at Chapra is aggrieved by the final order dated 1.12.2009 passed by the Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, in exercise of powers under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter called the Act) unseating her from the post on grounds of abuse of power and misconduct. 3. Learned counsel submits that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for alleged illegality in appointment of Panchayat Teachers in 2b06. The petitioner denied that she had signed any documents alleging that her signature, if any, had been forged. She further contended during enquiry by the executive authorities that the documents in question bore the signature of the Panchayat Secretary, alone. Merely because a First Information Report may have been lodged, shall not be sufficient justification to unseat her visiting her with very serious consequences as an elected person. 4. It is next submitted without prejudice to other rights and contentions to be raised at an appropriate stage, if necessary, the submission at this stage from paragraph-9 of the impugned order is that it notices her defence for a prima facie satisfaction by the District Magistrate who by his letter no. 4554(c) dated 13.12.2008 had directed the Superintendent of Police, Saran Division, to examine the aspect of forgery of her signature as alleged by the petitioner. Referring to paragraph-10 of the impugned order dealing with the comments of the District Magistrate on the cause shown by the petitioner, it is submitted that the District Magistrate appears to have maintained complete silence with regard to his own letter dated 13.12.2008 referred to aforesaid. This aspect of the matter has again not been considered in the final conclusion at paragraph-17 of the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the State from the two counter affidavits on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 6, 7 is unable to demonstrate any statement with regard to the aforesaid letter of the District Magistrate no. 4554 dated 13.12.2008 referred to in the impugned order. 6. On the allegations against the petitioner she denies the same and urges that she has not signed any document and, if a document bears her signature it is forged. 4 and 6, 7 is unable to demonstrate any statement with regard to the aforesaid letter of the District Magistrate no. 4554 dated 13.12.2008 referred to in the impugned order. 6. On the allegations against the petitioner she denies the same and urges that she has not signed any document and, if a document bears her signature it is forged. If the respondents had rejected this defence outright raising a serious question of a disputed fact, matters would have been otherwise. But once, on her defence, being prima facie satisfied, they have referred the matter to the Police for cross-verification, without awaiting the report of such cross-verification to indict the petitioner by giving a finding against her is prejudging the issue. 7. The Court in the facts and circumstances of the case finds the impugned order dated 1.12.2009 to be premature at this stage. On that ground alone the Court is satisfied that it is not sustainable in its present form. The order dated 1.12.2009 is set aside. If so advised, the respondents may proceed appropriately in accordance with law after the Police report referred to above is received by them. 8. The application stands allowed: