issued a notice to the petitioner stating that no explanation has been received for the charge memo dated 27-06-2008 and therefore, it is taken that the petitioner has no explanation to offer, but, however, with a view to afford an opportunity to the petitioner, date was fixed for appearance of the petitioner to be heard in person. On the said date, the petitioner is said to have appeared before the second respondent and placed for consideration of the second respondent that there is absolutely no misappropriation of the Panchayat funds. Further, it was brought to the notice of the second respondent that the petitioner has given a complaint against the President of the Panchayat that there has been misappropriation of the Panchayat funds given by the Central Government under various Schemes and such misappropriation was done by the President and the Inspecting Team also found that the President has misappropriated those funds. However, the second respondent by order dated 07-01-2009 removed the petitioner from the post of Vice President of the Panchayat Union. Earlier, the District Collector appears to have not been satisfied with the petitioner's explanation and has directed the Tahsildar to convene a Meeting of the Panchayat on 01-11-2008, which ultimately resulted in the impugned order dated 07-01-2009.
