Word his petition has been brought challenging the impugned order passed by Collector, Durg (respondent No.2) dated 23.9.2021 (Annexure P-13) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order of respondent No.3 dated 4.3.2021 (Annexure-P11) was upheld. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Sirsakhurd in the jurisdiction of District-Durg. Certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner by a complaint (Annexure-P2). A preliminary inquiry was made on this complaint without serving any copy of complaint upon the petitioner, however, the petitioner submitted a written reply. Without giving any consideration on the reply submitted by the petitioner, the preliminary inquiry report was submitted, holding the petitioner responsible of various irregularities alleged against him. 4. The petitioner was then served with a show-cause notice dated 11.11.2020(Annexure-P8) without supplying the copy of charge-sheet or the annexures of the documents, however, the petitioner submitted his reply vide Annexure-P9 to contest the proceeding against him. The petitioner cross-examined the witnesses present in this inquiry and on the basis of their admissions, there was nothing to establish any case against the petitioner. The impugned order dated 4.3.2021 (Annexure- P11) was passed by respondent No.3 invoking the power under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, holding the petitioner responsible for the financial irregularities and directing his removal from the post of Sarpanch. The appeal was preferred before respondent No.2, in which, initially stay order was granted by order dated 12.7.2021 (Annexure-P12), however, the appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.9.2021(Annexure-13). 44. Pradeep Sharma (P.W. 12) in para 2 of his examination-in-chief itself had stated that he had not added or subtracted anything in the police statements of Sultan Singh, Balkar Singh and Tahsildar Singh. In para 7 of his cross-examination, this witness further clarified that it is incorrect to say that Balkar Singh (P.W.5) had not given any statement and he had recorded the statement of Balkar Singh on his own and similarly he denied that he had recorded the statements of Tahsildar Singh on his own. Thus, in view of the specific statement made by this witness in para 2 of his examination-in-chief, it is clear that nothing was added and subtracted by this witness in the police statements of Sultan Singh (P.W.4), Balkar Singh (P.W.5) and Tahsildar Singh Baghel (P.W.6).