JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.07.2013 by which order dated 14.09.2012 passed in favour of the petitioner has been set aside. 2. In short, the petitioner is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Bhukhari and was placed under suspension on 15.02.2012 on the ground that an FIR No.120 dated 18.10.2011, under Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201, 176 and 202 IPC, has been registered against him at Police Station Sadar, Jagadhri. The said order of suspension was recalled by the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar on 14.09.2012 on the ground that the charges under all Sections of the IPC except Section 120-B IPC have been dropped against the petitioner. The said order was challenged by respondent no.3 by way of appeal under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, before the Appellate Authority and has been set aside on 30.07.2013 holding that the petitioner has been charge sheeted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide his order dated 12.03.2012, for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC for conspiring to commit murder. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority has committed an error of law in not remanding the case back to the Deputy Commissioner at the time when his order has been set aside for passing an appropriate order and secondly a similar matter has been admitted in the case of Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 398 in which it has been observed that “when a person is involved in a criminal case, same may not, in all events, be such that may amount to moral turpitude but is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties”. 4. 4. However, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that both the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner are fallacious because the Appellate Authority, while setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, is not required to remit the case back to him to pass an appropriate order as after the order has been set aside, the previous order dated 15.02.2012 became operational which was diluted by the Deputy Commissioner on 14.09.2012 and secondly the Appellate Authority has categorically observed that “undoubtedly, the offence under section 120B IPC involves moral turpitude and the charge made against the respondent no.2 is likely to embarrass him in discharge of his duties also”. Thus, it is the considered opinion of the Appellate Authority that since the petitioner has been charge sheeted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, on 12.03.2012 for having committed an offence under Section 120-B IPC for conspiring to commit murder, it would definitely embarrass him in the discharge of his duties. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------