JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. This intra- court appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 2.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge partly allowing the WP(C) No. 4670/2011. 2. The appellant-Dr. Manash Das (Respondent no.6 in the writ petition) was the Chairman of Karimganj Municipal Board and serious allegations of financial anomalies were levelled against him, while he was holding that charge. The Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj to conduct an inquiry for the said charges and the latter submitted his report on 25.07.2011 disclosing irregularities in dealing with the funds of that Board. The said report was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj to the Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Government of Assam, vide letter dated 26.7.2011. Pursuant to the said report, the appellant was served with a notice under section 28(3) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (in short ‘Act’) on 19.8.2011 and he also submitted a reply thereto on 6.9.2011 denying the charges and disputing the veracity of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj. Thereafter, Director of Municipal Administration was asked to submit an inquiry report and he submitted a report. On 22.11.2012, a direction was given by the learned single Judge to dispose of the proceedings initiated under section 28(3) of the Act and the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Urban Development Department passed an order on 31.12.2012 holding allegations of corruption and misappropriation of Municipal fund by the appellant to be not true. However, the aforesaid report dated 31.12.2012 divulged certain irregularities in maintenance of record and accounts of the Board and the appellant was directed to strictly adhere to the accounting norms. With the above directions, the matter was closed by the said report. 3. The writ petitioners-who were elected Ward Commissioners of the said Board-filed the writ petition being aggrieved with the inaction of the authorities in taking appropriate action on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj. The learned single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition directed the Chief Secretary, Assam to cause an inquiry through an officer of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary since serious charges of financial irregularities have emerged in both the inquiry reports dated 25.7.2011 and 31.12.2012 and hence, there was a necessity for a thorough inquiry. 4. The learned single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition directed the Chief Secretary, Assam to cause an inquiry through an officer of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary since serious charges of financial irregularities have emerged in both the inquiry reports dated 25.7.2011 and 31.12.2012 and hence, there was a necessity for a thorough inquiry. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials available in the records, we find no merit in the instant writ appeal. Both the inquiry reports reveal some sort of financial irregularities taking place in the affairs of the Board, in question. The report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj pointed the finger to the appellant holding him responsible for the irregularities whereas the report dated 31.12.2012 reveals that there were irregularities in the accounts of the Board and it further strictly directed the appellant to adhere to the accounting norms. Although the report dated 31.12.2012 did not decisively point the finger of guilt to the appellant, but at the same time it did not also deny the fact of financial irregularities taking place in that particular Board under the leadership of appellant. These concurrent findings regarding some sort of financial irregularities in that Board makes it necessary for conducting a thorough inquiry. 5. We agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge that conjoint reading of Sections 28(3), 29(3), 293, 296, 296-A, 297 and 298 of the Act clearly stipulates that the State is duty bound to ensure that the affairs of the Municipal Boards are to be carried out in accordance with law and when the reports of financial irregularities or mismanagements emerged and were brought to the notice of the Government authorities, it was incumbent upon the government to take immediate measures under the appropriate provisions of law. But in the case in hand the same was not done. We do not find sufficient ground to disagree with the learned Single Judge and accordingly the impugned Judgment and order is not interfered with. The writ appeal stands dismissed.