Mukhiya’s removal under Section 18(5) requires independent inquiry by Lok Prahari and an order by the Government.

The petitioner, an elected Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Baksanda, was accused of financial misappropriation regarding the withdrawal of Rs. 8,34,700/- from the Sixth State Finance Commission funds

Although the petitioner returned the funds after 45 days following an objection by a Technical Assistant, a complaint was filed by a ward member

Based on an inquiry report by the Senior Deputy Collector and a recommendation by the District Magistrate, Nawada, the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Lok Prahari recommended the petitioner's removal

Consequently, the Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department issued an order dated 26.02.2026 removing the petitioner from the post of Mukhiya and declaring him ineligible for election for five years

The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ of certiorari.

1. Whether the removal of the Mukhiya was valid when the recommendation was based on an inquiry conducted by the District Magistrate’s subordinate rather than an independent inquiry by the Lok Prahari as mandated by the proviso to Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006?

2. Whether an order of removal passed by the Secretary of the Department, stating it has the "approval of the Government," satisfies the statutory requirement that the "Government" itself must pass the order?

Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, specifically the 2011 amendment (proviso), which stipulates that once a Lok Prahari system is notified, the Government can only remove a Mukhiya based on the "inquiry and recommendation of Lok Prahari"

Administrative law principle that where a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, citing Taylor v. Taylor, Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh

Precedent regarding the distinction between a Departmental Secretary’s order and a Government order as per Anil Thakur v. State of Bihar Ors. (2021)

The court reasoned that since the Divisional Commissioner was officially notified as the Lok Prahari on 28.11.2022, any removal process must strictly adhere to the proviso of Section 18(5)

In this case, the Lok Prahari did not conduct an independent inquiry but merely relied upon the report of the Senior Deputy Collector and the recommendation of the District Magistrate. The court found this to be a procedural lapse, as the statute specifically requires the "inquiry and recommendation of Lok Prahari"

The court held that the removal order was signed by the Secretary and merely claimed Government approval; per the precedent in Anil Thakur, this did not constitute an order passed by the "Government" as required by the Act

The court set aside the Divisional Commissioner’s recommendation dated 14.06.2024 and the Secretary's removal order dated 26.02.2026. The petitioner was effectively reinstated, though the court clarified that the respondent authorities are not barred from proceeding against the petitioner afresh in strict accordance with the law