ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgarh in respect of the act of the petitioner and others in withdrawing money on the basis of forged document, communication dated 10.3.17 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), directing the District Collector (Vigilance) to lodge FIR against the petitioner and others and the charge sheet issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ("the Act") initiating inquiry for removal of the petitioner, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Galad on account of his alleged involvement in the act of misconduct. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the SDO has not conducted the inquiry in fair manner. It is submitted that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before submitting the report. Learned counsel submitted that from bare perusal of the job card, it is apparent that Smt. Sukhi Devi had worked as labourer from 13.6.14 to 26.6.14 at the site during construction of Toilet at her house. Learned counsel submitted that SDO had no jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry inasmuch as, as per Rule 5 & 6 of the MNREGA (Grievance Redressal) Rules, 2006 ("Rules of 2006"), only Programme Officer is empowered to conduct the inquiry. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner has not misused the fund or committed any forgery and thus, he has been wrongly implicated in the matter. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 4. The allegations inter alia against the petitioner are that while registering the job card of Kaluram, a dead person, online, the muster roll was issued in his name and while showing his presence, the wages for the period 13.6.14 to 20.6.14 were deposited in the bank account of his son Sunil. Further allegation is that after the complaint being lodged, to cover up the illegalities committed, corrections were made in the muster roll and name of Sukhi Devi w/o Late Shri Kaluram was entered therein in place of deceased Kaluram whereas, as per the job card of Sukhi Devi, she was not engaged in any work after 12.3.11. The allegations levelled are substantiated by documentary evidence. The allegations levelled are substantiated by documentary evidence. Thus, taking into consideration the nature of allegations and material available on record in support thereof, in the considered opinion of this court, the directions issued by the State Government, directing Collector (Vigilance) to file an FIR for investigation of the offence committed as also the inquiry initiated against the petitioner under Section 38 of the Act, cannot be faulted with. Even otherwise, this court cannot issue directions to the State Government not to lodge an FIR against the persons, who in its opinion have committed the offence. 5. It is to be noticed that the Collector of the District is the District Programme Coordinator, who by virtue of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2006, is empowered to authorize any officer to conduct inquiry into the complaint received and therefore, nothing turns on the question that at the instance of District Collector, the preliminary inquiry into the allegations was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgarh. Moreover, the District Collector as Collector (Vigilance), is empowered to direct inquiry into the allegations levelled against any official of the Panchayati Raj Institution and thus, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioner that action of the Sub Divisional Officer, had no jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into the allegations levelled, is absolutely devoid of any merit. 6. Obviously, on FIR being lodged, the matter shall be fairly investigated by the police. Likewise, the proceedings under Section 38 of the Act is required to be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under the law, which ensures fair opportunity to the delinquent elected representative of Panchayati Raj Institution. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 8. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.