JUDGMENT : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, Gandhinagar as well the order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Mamlatdar, Petlad whereby, the Mamlatdar, concluded that the petitioner has failed in performing her duties and directed Taluka Development Officer to move proposal for initiating the proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Gujarat Pachayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1993’). 2. Tersely stated are the facts: 2.1 Petitioner at the relevant point of time, was the Sarpanch of Demol Gram Panchayat. In the year 2008, proposal was made to Taluka Development Officer, seeking permission for 282 trees-felling. After undertaking assessment, the petitioner together with Talati-cum-Mantri, had drawn the panchnama to the effect that 282 trees which are damaged, are required to be removed. The market value of the said trees, was determined at Rs.82,900/-. Panchkyas was also sent together with other documents. Considering the proposal of the petitioner, the Taluka Development Officer, Petlad on 07.06.2008, issued the permission, fixing the upset price at Rs.1,30,000/- with respect to 282 trees. It is the case of the petitioner that notice was published in the newspaper and as a result of auction proceedings, respondent no. 2 was allotted the work of felling of trees. According to the petitioner allegations were made that over and above 282 trees, excess felling of trees has taken place, i.e. 60 more trees were cut. 2.2 As a result whereof, FIR was lodged against the respondent no. 3 on 30.07.2008 for commission of offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Discernibly, the respondent no. 1 preferred an application before the Mamlatdar, complaining the illegal felling of trees which led to the proceedings under the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Saurashtra Felling of Trees (Infliction of Punishment) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1951’) and ultimately, by passing an order dated 12.08.2009, fine of Rs.12,000/- was imposed. While doing so, the Mamlatdar also concluded that the petitioner has failed in performing her duties and direction was issued to the Taluka Development Officer to move the proposal for initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, as the petitioner, has failed to perform her duties for, the properties of the panchayat, have not been protected. 2.3 The order of the Mamlatdar was challenged before the Deputy Collector, Petlad who, passed an order dated 07.11.2009. Appeal filed by the petitioner, though was rejected, petitioner was exonerated on the ground of her non-involvement. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Secretary, Forest & Environment Department who, passed an order dated 26.04.2011 whereby, the order passed by the Deputy Collector, was quashed and set aside and the order of the Mamlatdar dated 12.08.2009, was confirmed. Slight modification was ordered by the Deputy Secretary and amount of penalty, was directed to be paid by all the respondents, i.e. the petitioner and respondents nos. 2 and 3 herein. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition. 3. Mr. Utsav R. Shah, learned advocate for Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1951 were initiated which, culminated into passing of order dated 12.08.2009 whereby, the Mamlatdar, imposed the penalty upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mamlatdar had concluded that the petitioner has failed to protect the properties of the panchayat and therefore, has failed to perform her duties under the provisions of the Act of 1993. The Mamlatdar, directed the Taluka Development Officer to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. It is submitted that such direction, could not have been issued more particularly, in the very order, the Mamlatdar, has noted that there is no clear and specific evidence which would prove that the petitioner on her own or through the auction purchaser, got the trees cut. Therefore, when the Mamlatdar has concluded that there is no evidence against the petitioner, the direction contained in the operative portion, could not have been issued. 3.1 It is submitted that after following procedure and taking necessary permission from the Taluka Development Officer, that the upset price of 282 trees was fixed. Public auction was conducted and it is thereafter, that the respondent no. 3.1 It is submitted that after following procedure and taking necessary permission from the Taluka Development Officer, that the upset price of 282 trees was fixed. Public auction was conducted and it is thereafter, that the respondent no. 2 was awarded the work, permitting him to cut the trees as agreed, but on account of some mischief on the part of respondent no. 3 that trees in excess were cut. The petitioner on the very day, took steps initiating criminal action, followed by lodging of the FIR against respondent no. 3 on 30.07.2008 for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Everything was brought to the notice of the Mamlatdar; however, the Mamlatdar, disregarding the evidence, has while imposing penalty, passed order to the Taluka Development Officer to initiate proceedings. 3.2 It is submitted that in the first place, the petitioner was not found to have been involved in the illegal act of felling of trees. Moreover, as per the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1951, the limited power available with the Mamlatdar, is to impose fine as stipulated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3. Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1951, the Mamlatdar could not have passed such an order which, would be beyond his jurisdiction. 3.3 It is next submitted that being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector who, accepted the contentions raised by the petitioner. Though appeal came to be rejected, confirming the order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Mamlatdar, but exonerated the petitioner of her involvement in illegal felling of trees. The Deputy Collector, considering the record available noted that as part of her duty, the petitioner has registered a complaint with the police station and hence, the petitioner, has performed her duty. Aspects, namely, how many trees were cut; who cut the trees; and the whereabouts of the trees, would be considered by the police during the investigation. After the permission which was granted to the respondent nos. 2 and 3, it was their responsibility to have adhered to the terms and conditions on which, the permission was granted. In absence of any positive evidence, the petitioner cannot be said to have been involved in the act of illegal felling of the trees. After the permission which was granted to the respondent nos. 2 and 3, it was their responsibility to have adhered to the terms and conditions on which, the permission was granted. In absence of any positive evidence, the petitioner cannot be said to have been involved in the act of illegal felling of the trees. It is submitted that with such findings, the Deputy Collector, exonerated the petitioner. 3.4 In the appeal before the Deputy Secretary, it disregarded the aspects and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and restored the order of the Mamlatdar dated 12.08.2009. It is submitted that the Deputy Secretary, committed a grave error inasmuch as, it directed the petitioner and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to pay the penalty equally. 3.5 It is submitted that considering the observations made by the Deputy Secretary, it nowhere states about the involvement of the Sarpanch in the illegal felling of trees. The Deputy Secretary, failed in not properly considering the merits, so also the provisions of the Act of 1951. It is submitted that considering the evidence produced before the authorities and the fact that there is no clear finding as regards involvement of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner, was negligent in discharging her duties as a Sarpanch. 3.6 It is also submitted that the criminal complaint, was lodged and as a result of the investigation, chargesheet has been filed whereby, the respondent no. 3, has been shown as an accused for the unauthorized felling of the trees. The respondent nos. 2 and 3, therefore, have accepted the order of fine of Rs.12,000/- and the same, has also been deposited. The said aspect was very much known to the Deputy Secretary; however, the Deputy Secretary, in its order has directed the fine to be paid by the petitioner, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 equally, which exhibits non-application of mind and therefore, on this ground as well, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.7 It is further submitted that after the direction was issued by the Mamlatdar, the District Development Officer, Anand had issued a notice dated 28.09.2011 which, clearly suggests that the genesis of the notice, is the order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Mamlatdar. Reply was filed to the said notice, indicating each and every aspects. 3.7 It is further submitted that after the direction was issued by the Mamlatdar, the District Development Officer, Anand had issued a notice dated 28.09.2011 which, clearly suggests that the genesis of the notice, is the order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Mamlatdar. Reply was filed to the said notice, indicating each and every aspects. The notice, is issued under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Act of 1993, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be removed from her post, on the ground that the petitioner has been negligent in performing her duties; abused her powers and has committed illegality. It is submitted that assuming without admitting that the petitioner, was responsible for the excess felling of trees, the same, would not be covered within the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Act of 1993 and not fall within the purview of the Act of 1951. 3.8 Reliance is placed on the CAV judgment of this Court in the case of Mukeshbhai Aatmaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 10522 of 2020. In the said case, the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act of 1993 on the allegations that excess trees were cut which, were not forming part of the contract awarded for felling of the trees. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Geetaben vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 18886 of 2014, it has been held and observed that if the materials on hand even if taken as true on their face value, they at the most would suggest a case of supervisory negligence and such allegations cannot be put at par with misconduct or disgraceful conduct or an abuse of power or default in the performance of duties as envisaged in sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Act of 1993. 3.9 Mr. Utsav Shah, learned advocate submitted that therefore, on both the counts, namely, that the Mamlatdar while exercising the powers under Section 3 of the Act of 1951, had no jurisdiction to pass an order directing the Taluka Development Officer to initiate the proceedings against the Sarpanch and on merits as well it would not fall within the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Act of 1993. The order of the Mamlatdar, so also the Deputy Secretary therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Raxit J. Dholakia, learned advocate for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the petitioner being the Sarpanch of the village, was found misusing the powers vested in her and therefore, the authority was approached. Complaint was received that 60 green trees other than those which were allowed to cut, have been cut. It is submitted that when the permission was sought for by the Sarpanch, i.e. the petitioner, the Taluka Development Officer has passed an order dated 07.06.2008, granting permission for felling of 282 trees on certain terms and conditions and as per the condition no. 3, so also condition no. 7, it was the personal responsibility of the Sarpanch to see that there is no breach committed of the said order. When there was a specific responsibility attached, the Sarpanch, ought to have personally visited the site and taken care to see that there is no excess felling of trees other than the permission granted by the Taluka Development Officer. It is further submitted that even some of the members had tried to prevent the felling of trees; however, they were informed that it is at the instance of the petitioner that the activity of felling of trees, has taken place. Their statements, were also recorded, which confirm all the instructions issued by the petitioner. 4.1 It is next submitted that one of the grievances raised by the petitioner is the proposed action to be initiated under the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Act of 1993; however, the said grievance would be premature, considering the fact that so far, except issuance of notice, no steps have been taken and therefore, the petition, would be premature and does not deserve to be entertained. 5. Ms Krushita Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6, while supporting the impugned order, submitted that it is not in dispute that it is the responsibility of the Sarpanch to protect the properties and it is also not in dispute that there was felling of 60 trees in excess. Since the Sarpanch, had failed to perform her duties, the Mamlatdar, in the operative portion has recommended the Taluka Development Officer to initiate the proposal. Since the Sarpanch, had failed to perform her duties, the Mamlatdar, in the operative portion has recommended the Taluka Development Officer to initiate the proposal. It is only thereafter, that the proceedings were initiated and it cannot be said that the order of the Mamlatdar, is illegal or bad on this count. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. Mr. Devang R. Bhatt, learned advocate for Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 7-District Development Officer, submitted that the Mamlatdar, has passed an order after considering the evidence on record. Though the Deputy Collector, rejected the appeal and exonerated the petitioner, the Deputy Secretary, passed an order, reviving the order of the Mamlatdar qua the petitioner and quashed the order of the Deputy Collector dated 07.11.2009. It is submitted that the Mamlatdar, has recommended initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner and therefore, the petition against such proposed action, would not be maintainable, the same being premature and therefore, the petition, deserves not to be entertained. 6.1 It is submitted that as the petition, is premature, no cause of action can be said to have been arisen to the petitioner to file the captioned writ petition inasmuch as, the proceedings are at the stage of issuance of notice; the notice has been issued and the petitioner has also filed the reply and the petitioner, will be entitled to a full-fledged hearing. It is only after any order is passed that a cause of action would accrue to the petitioner so as to bring the writ petition before this Court. Under the circumstances, the petition does not deserve to be entertained and be rejected. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials available on record. 8. The genesis of the captioned writ petition is the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 12.08.2009 for the breach of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1951. Mamlatdar was of the opinion that the petitioner, being a Sarpanch, it is the responsibility to take care and protect the properties of the panchayat. Having failed to do so, the petitioner, has been negligent in performing her duties and therefore, is liable to be proceeded under the provisions of the Act of 1993. The Taluka Development Officer, was recommended accordingly. Having failed to do so, the petitioner, has been negligent in performing her duties and therefore, is liable to be proceeded under the provisions of the Act of 1993. The Taluka Development Officer, was recommended accordingly. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector who, rejected it and confirmed the order dated 12.08.2009 of the Mamlatdar, but exonerated the petitioner, as the Deputy Collector, was of the opinion that there is no involvement of the petitioner in illegal felling of trees. The respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Secretary who, allowed the same and the order of the Deputy Collector, was quashed and set aside and order of Mamlatdar, was revived. Being aggrieved, that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition. 9. Discernibly, the permission dated 07.06.2008 was granted by the Taluka Development Officer to the Sarpanch, permitting to auction 282 trees which, either had fallen or dried. As per the terms and conditions contained in the said order, the Sarpanch and Talati-cum-Mantri, would be responsible for breach of any of the terms and conditions contained in the said order. Auction proceedings were conducted and the respondent no. 2, was declared as a successful bidder who, was permitted to cut the trees as agreed. Allegations have been made that in excess of 282 trees, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have cut excess 60 green trees which, otherwise, was not within the scope of the auction proceedings. 10. The said act on the part of the respondent nos.2 and 3, led to filing of the complaint with the Mamlatdar for breach of the provisions of the Act of 1951. The said complaint was at the instance of the respondent no. 1, she being the Upa-Sarpanch. The matter, was heard and the Mamlatdar, as stated herein above, passed an order, holding that there is a breach of provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1951 and therefore, imposed fine as per the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1951. Fine was imposed upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3; however, the Taluka Development Officer, was ordered to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of Section 57 (1) of the Act of 1993. Fine was imposed upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3; however, the Taluka Development Officer, was ordered to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of Section 57 (1) of the Act of 1993. The issue, is whether the Mamlatdar, while exercising the powers under the Act of 1951, could have concluded that the Sarpanch has failed in performing her duties and directed the Taluka Development Officer to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of Section 57 of the Act of 1993? Hence, Section 3 of the Act of 1951, would be apt and reads thus: “3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in [the Code] or in any other law for the time being in force in the State: (a) no person either by himself or through any other person shall, without the written permission of the Collector or any other officer [or] [any Village Panchayat constituted or deemed to be a Village Panchayat under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958]] duly empowered in this behalf by the Government, voluntarily fell, appropriate or damage, or cause to be felled, appropriated or damaged, any tree, or any portion thereof [***] (b) any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-clause (a) shall, on conviction by a revenue officer not below the rank of a Mahalkari authorised by Government in this behalf, be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one thousand [and which shall not be less than rupees fifty, unless the Revenue Officer inflicting such fine considers it Short title, extent and commencement. Interpretation. Unauthorised felling of trees prohibited. [1951: Sau. XVII Saurashtra Felling of Trees (Infliction of Punishment) ACT, 1951 improper, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, to inflict such minimum amount of fine]. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the felling, appropriating or damaging any branch of babool tree for the purpose of using it or causing it to be used for cleaning teeth.” Section 3 deals with prohibition of unauthorized felling of the trees. Sub-Section (1) starts with a non-obstante clause which, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law in force, no person either by himself or through any other person without the written permission of the Collector, voluntarily fell, appropriate or damage, or cause to be felled, appropriated or damaged, any tree, or any portion thereof. Sub-Section (1) starts with a non-obstante clause which, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law in force, no person either by himself or through any other person without the written permission of the Collector, voluntarily fell, appropriate or damage, or cause to be felled, appropriated or damaged, any tree, or any portion thereof. Clause (b) for contravention of the provisions of sub-clause (a) provides that the person shall be liable to fine. Thus, Mamlatdar, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, can impose fine. These are the powers which can be culled out from the provisions and are available to the Mamlatdar. In the present case, as discussed the Mamlatdar virtually concluded that the Sarpanch has failed in performing the duties and liable to be proceeded as per the provisions of the Act of 1993, which, would be impermissible. Clearly, section 3 only provides for imposing of fine by the Mamltadar upon a person who has committed the breach for contravention of the provisions of sub-clause (a). The Mamlatdar, while exercising the powers under the provisions of the Act of 1951, could not have concluded that the Sarpanch has failed in performing her duties. Thus, the order of the Mamlatdar is bad on the count that it had concluded that as it is the responsibility of the Sarpanch to protect the properties the Sarpanch has failed to do so and is guilty. 11. Besides, after recording the contentions and submissions, in the second last paragraph, before the operative portion, the Mamlatdar, has examined and evaluated the facts and the evidence. Mamlatdar, has recorded the contention of the applicant, i.e. the respondent no. 1, about initiation of proceedings against the Sarpanch for cutting of excess 60 green trees. The said contention was not accepted, by observing in vernacular and English translation would be to the effect that there is no clear-cut evidence to substantiate that illegal felling of trees is by the Sarpanch or at her instance through the auction purchaser. The rest of the observation in the said paragraph only deals with the illegal felling of 60 excess trees; however, it does not say anything about involvement of the Sarpanch. The Mamlatdar, also takes note of filing of a complaint by the petitioner with the police station as regards felling of trees by the respondent nos. The rest of the observation in the said paragraph only deals with the illegal felling of 60 excess trees; however, it does not say anything about involvement of the Sarpanch. The Mamlatdar, also takes note of filing of a complaint by the petitioner with the police station as regards felling of trees by the respondent nos. 2 and 3; however, nowhere there is a specific finding arrived at by the Mamlatdar to have come to the conclusion that the Sarpanch, has failed in performing her duties. When there was no clear finding, the Mamlatdar, could not have directed the Taluka Development Officer to initiate the proceedings. Such conclusion about the failure would definitely affect the petitioner. 12. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Collector who, rejected the appeal; however, the petitioner-Sarpanch was exonerated and in the opinion of this Court, rightly so. The Deputy Collector, considered the illegal felling of trees and noted that the Sarpanch, as part of her duty, has lodged a complaint with police station and once the complaint has been filed, the aspects, namely, number of felling of trees; who has cut the trees; when the trees were cut, would be the matter of investigation. Also, the illegal felling of trees, would be the responsibility of respondent nos. 2 and 3, more particularly, when they have been allotted the work by way of an auction. Considering the aspect of registration of FIR with the police station and the responsibility of the auction purchaser, the Deputy Collector concluded that the involvement of Sarpanch in the illegal felling of trees, is not proved. With this, the Deputy Collector, exonerated the Sarpanch. The said observation, cannot be faulted with, when, more particularly, none of the learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents, could dislodge the findings proving it to be erroneous or perverse. 13. While in the appeal before the Deputy Secretary, it has reproduced the order of the Deputy Collector. After the reproduction, the Deputy Secretary has formulated eight issues. Issue no. 1 is as regards the legality of the order dated 07.06.2008 passed by the Taluka Development Officer. The Deputy Secretary, was of the opinion that Taluka Development Officer, had no authority to have passed such order. As per issue no. After the reproduction, the Deputy Secretary has formulated eight issues. Issue no. 1 is as regards the legality of the order dated 07.06.2008 passed by the Taluka Development Officer. The Deputy Secretary, was of the opinion that Taluka Development Officer, had no authority to have passed such order. As per issue no. 2, the Deputy Secretary, was of the opinion that there is nothing on record to suggest that 282 trees, were either fallen or dried. As per issue no. 3, the Deputy Secretary has observed that the powers to give the permission of felling of the trees, are with the Mamlatdar and not with the Taluka Development Officer. No certificate has been obtained for the purpose of disposal of the trees. All the aforesaid issues were not subject matter of proceedings. The issue which can be relatable to the Sarpanch, is issue no. 5 and it, records that the petitioner had registered the FIR on 30.07.2008 with respect to 20 quintals, but there is no complaint as regards felling of 60 trees. Issue No. 6 generally states that it is the responsibility of the Sarpanch to protect the public property and considering the documents, the Sarpanch and Talati-cum-Mantri, have been shirking their respective responsibilities. As per Issue No. 7, according to the Deputy Secretary, the Sarpanch ought to have made provision of watchman at time of felling of 282 trees. Having not done so, the petitioner is responsible. Issue no. 8, is with respect to the allegations made against the respondent no. 1. Discernibly, none of the issues dealt with by the Deputy Secretary, there is a positive finding that the petitioner, is responsible or that she was directly or indirectly involved in the illegal felling of excess trees. 14. As discussed herein above, the provisions of Section 3, are very clear and only empowers the Mamlatdar to impose fine; however, it nowhere suggests that the Mamlatdar can in furtherance of the exercise of the powers, issue direction to any of the authorities. Assuming without concluding that the Mamlatdar, could have recommended the proceedings against the Sarpanch, however, considering the facts of the present case, the conclusion and direction are untenable. Similar issue of illegal felling of trees, had fallen for consideration before this Court in the case of Mukeshbhai Aatmaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat (supra). Assuming without concluding that the Mamlatdar, could have recommended the proceedings against the Sarpanch, however, considering the facts of the present case, the conclusion and direction are untenable. Similar issue of illegal felling of trees, had fallen for consideration before this Court in the case of Mukeshbhai Aatmaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat (supra). Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner therein, who was a Sarpanch and was removed under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Act of 1993. Allegation was made of cutting down three trees more than the required number of trees, followed by registration of a case against the petitioner under the provisions of Act of 1951. Fine was imposed under the Act of 1951. In furtherance of the said order, proceedings were initiated for removal of the Sarpanch which culminated into order removing the Sarpanch, i.e. the petitioner therein on the ground that the petitioner, was guilty of misconduct in discharge of duties, as the Sarpanch has committed the disgraceful conduct and abused his power. 15. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Geetaben vs. State of Gujarat (supra) wherein, various judgments of the Apex Court, were considered. After considering the principle laid down, the coordinate bench has observed that the case, would not stand attracted by the provisions of Section 57. This Court held and observed that in absence of any allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner by virtue of the act of not preventing felling of the trees, did so for his own advantage or that he did not follow particular procedure or that it was done for his personal gains or with a view to abuse of powers vested in him. This Court was of the opinion that as per the materials on hand, taken as true, on their face value, they at the most would suggest case of supervisory negligence and not misconduct or disgraceful conduct or abuse of power or default in performance of duties as Sarpanch under sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Act of 1993. Paragraph 10 of the order passed in Mukeshbhai Aatmaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat (supra) read thus: “10. What is therefore evident from the nature of allegations against the petitioner viz-a-viz the materials on record is that it is certainly not a case where provisions of Section 57 would stand attracted. Paragraph 10 of the order passed in Mukeshbhai Aatmaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat (supra) read thus: “10. What is therefore evident from the nature of allegations against the petitioner viz-a-viz the materials on record is that it is certainly not a case where provisions of Section 57 would stand attracted. Though the affidavit-in-reply goes beyond the content of the order by suggesting that the petitioner colluded with the contractor and misused and misappropriated the funds, there is nothing of such allegation in the show cause notice or in the order of the District Development Officer or in the order confirmed by the Development Commissioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he by virtue of the act of not preventing felling of three trees did so for his own advantage or that he did not follow a particular procedure. It is not the case of the panchayat that it was done for his personal gains or with a view to abuse the powers vested in him. In other words, the materials on hand even if taken as true on their face value, they at the most would suggest a case of supervisory negligence. Therefore, in the opinion of this court such allegations cannot be put at par with misconduct or a disgraceful conduct or an abuse of power or default in the performance of duties as envisaged in Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.” 16. In the present case, it is nobody’s case that petitioner had gained by not preventing the feeling of trees or that the petitioner had abused the powers by allowing the felling of trees either on her own or was at her instance. Moreover, in the order of the Mamlatdar itself, it was of the opinion that there is no evidence against the petitioner, that the petitioner on her own or at the instance of respondent nos.2 and 3 got the trees cut. Therefore, in absence of any findings recorded by any of the authorities, namely, the Mamlatdar in the first instance and the Deputy Secretary in the second, that the petitioner was involved directly or indirectly in the illegal felling of trees, the impugned orders are illegal, bad and warrant interference. Therefore, in absence of any findings recorded by any of the authorities, namely, the Mamlatdar in the first instance and the Deputy Secretary in the second, that the petitioner was involved directly or indirectly in the illegal felling of trees, the impugned orders are illegal, bad and warrant interference. The orders dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Mamlatdar and dated 26.04.2011 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, Gandhinagar, deserve to be quashed and set aside and are hereby quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the order of the Deputy Collector, stands revived. 17. In view of the above, the consequential action taken by the respondent no. 7, also deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. 18. The petition, therefore, stands allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.