JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned legality of order dated 1.6.11 passed by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, holding the petitioners guilty of not discharging their duties as Ward Member, Gram Panchayat, Goyali. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners were elected as Ward Members of Gram Panchayat, Goyali. On 31.5.07, the petitioners were issued notices by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi to show cause as to why they did not inspect the site for the purpose of grant of patta of an ancestral house at Village Sarneshwarji pursuant to resolution adopted by Gram Panchayat, Goyali, in its meeting held on 5.11.05. Thereafter, on 3.8.09 the petitioners were served with a charge sheet issued by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi with the allegation that the petitioner did not inspect the site as directed on 26.6.06, pursuant to resolution dated 20.6.05 adopted by the Gram Panchayat, appointing them members of inspection committee of panchas. The petitioners filed the reply to the charge sheet, produced documentary evidence and also expressed their desire to produce the witnesses for examination. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi, conducted the inquiry into the charge levelled against the petitioners and submitted the report holding the petitioners guilty. After perusal of the inquiry report, the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department passed an order dated 1.6.11 recording the finding of guilt against the petitioners on the charge levelled. However, before any order of removal and debarring the petitioner from contesting the election in future could be passed by the State Government, the petitioner approached this Court, questioning the legality of order dated 1.6.11 passed by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that only allegation against the petitioner is that though nominated as members of the committee constituted for site inspection under sub-rule (3) of Rule 146 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, the petitioners did not inspect the site and failed to submit their opinion as to desirability of sale applied for. Learned counsel submitted that it is matter of record that the date and time for inspection of site of Khasra No.224 was fixed as on 26.6.06 at 10.00 AM, whereas the notice was served upon the petitioner on 26.6.06 at 11.00 AM. Learned counsel submitted that it is matter of record that the date and time for inspection of site of Khasra No.224 was fixed as on 26.6.06 at 10.00 AM, whereas the notice was served upon the petitioner on 26.6.06 at 11.00 AM. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had clarified the position in their reply to the show cause notice yet without considering the same, the petitioners were issued charge sheet. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the inquiry report and the order passed by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department show that they have not cared to consider the factum of service of notice upon the petitioner on 26.6.06 at 11.00 AM and held them guilty of the charge by observing that reply submitted by them is not proper. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact the charge sheets issued to the petitioners were absolutely frivolous, but in any case, the cryptic order passed by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, holding the petitioners guilty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that the order impugned has been passed by the Secretary after due consideration of the inquiry report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi, and the petitioners having admittedly failed to inspect the site pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat, Goyali, the finding of guilt recorded by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioners was that despite being nominated as members of the inspecting committee, constituted pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of inspection of the site, they failed to inspect the site and submit their opinion to the Gram Panchayat as to desirability of issuance of the patta of an ancestral house on the basis of the old possession and thus, defied the resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat. 7. 7. It is to be noticed that as per the provisions of Rule 146 of the Rules, the Panchas deputed as members of the inspection committee are required to inspect the site within 15 days and submit their opinion to the Panchayat. Obviously, 15 days time granted to the committee for inspection of the site pre-supposes that while issuing the notice to do the needful, the Panchas were required to be given 15 days time to do the needful. It is a matter of record that the notice for the purpose of inspection of the site issued to the petitioners by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Goyali on 21.6.06 was served upon them on 26.6.06 at 11.00 AM, whereas, as per the notice, the site inspection was to be made on 26.6.06 at 10 a.m. Thus, as a matter of fact, no time was left with the petitioners to inspect the site in terms of the notice issued. In this view of the matter, ignoring the provisions of Rule 146 of the Rules and the fact that the petitioners were not even informed well in advance about the inspection to be carried out on the specified date and time, the charge sheets issued appear to be absolutely misconceived. 8. It is pertinent to note that as per the notice, the inspection was to be carried out on 26.6.06 and in the first instance, the notice seeking explanation of the petitioners for alleged defiance of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat was issued by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi on 31.5.07. Thereafter, no proceedings were taken and all of a sudden on 3.8.09, the charge sheets were issued to the petitioners. A perusal of the inquiry report reveals that while arriving at the conclusion holding the petitioners guilty of the charge, the Inquiry Officer has just ignored the factum of the notice for the inspection to be carried out being served upon the petitioners on 26.6.06 at 11 a.m. whereas, the inspection was scheduled to be conducted on the same day at 10 a.m. and thus, the finding arrived at is ex-facie capricious and perverse. 9. 9. Strangely enough while passing the order impugned, the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, has not even cared to go through the material on record in its entirety and objectivity and proceeded to hold the petitioners guilty by merely recording its ipse dixit that the reply submitted by the petitioners is not proper. 10. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case discussed herein above, this court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by issuing the charge sheets and the order impugned passed by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, holding them guilty of the charge, being avowedly illegal, arbitrary and actuated by malice, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. In the result, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 1.6.11 passed by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, is quashed. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.