Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Bharati H. Dangre, J.
Rajendra s/o Radhakisan Raut – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.11717 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2022
The Court held that the removal of a duly elected Sarpanch through the democratic process, was found to be improper. By exercising the power conferred by Section 39(3) of the VP Act, the Honourable Minister set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, removing the Sarpanch.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint with the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (VP Act), seeking an inquiry into the alleged corruption committed by the Sarpanch and the then Village Development Officer. Upon the complaint being preferred, respondent No.4/ Sarpanch filed his detailed reply denying the allegations levelled against him, on 28.04.2021. The Additional Divisional Commissioner addressed a communication to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, on 15.02.2020 to conduct an inquiry. Pursuant thereto, the fact finding report was called from the office of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dharur and on receipt of the report dated 29.05.2020, the Chief Executive Officer issued a show cause notice to respondent No.4 on 04.11.2020, as to why action should not be taken against him in the wake of the report submitted by the Block Development Officer. Respondent No.4/ Sarpanch submitted his reply on 17.11.2020 and the Chief Executive Officer conducted an inquiry on 17.12.2020 and 30.12.2020. Upon following the principles of natural justice and recording the prima facie opinion that respondent No.4/ Sarpanch is found to be guilty of the alleged charges levelled at Point Nos.1 to 5, which warranted an action under Section 39(1) of the VP Act, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, forwarded his inquiry report along with the reply filed by the Sarpanch, to respondent No.2/ Divisional Commissioner. On 06.07.2021, by making reference to the report of the Chief Executive Officer and also to the reply submitted by respondent No.4/ Sarpanch and upon hearing the parties, the Divisional Commissioner made an attempt to discern the factual aspects and on perusal of the material placed before him, arrived at the conclusion that respondent No.4/Sarpanch has committed misconduct while discharging his duties as Sarpanch and therefore, by exercising the power vested in him under Section 39(1) of the VP Act, the complaint filed by the petitioner was granted and the report of the Chief Executive Officer dated 09.03.2021 was accepted and respondent No.4/ Sarpanch came to be removed from the post of Sarpanch of village Nalwandi. Being aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 06.07.2021, respondent No.4/ Sarpanch preferred an appeal under Section 39(3) of the VP Act, before the Honourable Minister, Rural Development Department, being GP Appeal No.19/2021, which was allowed on 06.10.2021 after hearing respondent No.4 as well as the petitioner. On due deliberation upon the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner on 06.07.2021, the Honourable Minister returned a finding that respondent No.4/ Sarpanch is not engaged in any act for his own benefit and since his personal interest is not involved into the alleged acts of misconduct, merely because there are some administrative lapses, the removal of a duly elected Sarpanch through the democratic process, was found to be improper. By exercising the power conferred by Section 39(3) of the VP Act, the Honourable Minister set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, removing the Sarpanch.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the findings rendered against respondent No.4/ Sarpanch by the Divisional Commissioner are not based on valid material being brought on record and the Honourable Minister, while reversing the findings of the Commissioner, has rightly based his conclusions on the principle that in democratic process, when a duly elected office bearer is to be removed, the procedure must be strictly adhered to and the charges levelled resulting in removal, must be fully established.
Issues: Whether the removal of a duly elected Sarpanch through the democratic process was improper.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the removal of a duly elected Sarpanch through the democratic process, was found to be improper. By exercising the power conferred by Section 39(3) of the VP Act, the Honourable Minister set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, removing the Sarpanch.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Minister and dismissed the Writ Petition.
JUDGMENT :
1. Democracy can be described as “Power of People”, a way of governing, which depends upon the will of the people. For the essence of democracy is the decentralization of power and allowing governance to reach at the grass root level for welfare of people. The local government elected by people imbibes democratic functioning of the society involving people in the area. The local bodies having administrative, legislative and financial autonomy with dedicated bureaucracy at local level, has helped this country realize its dream. In the words of the father of nation Mahatma Gandhi, “In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-widening, never-ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance, but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units.”
2. The aforesaid may not be true for the village Nalwandi located in Taluka and District Beed, when a move was initiated for removal of its Sarpanch by alleging corruption, gross negligence and misconduct in discharge of his duties and his removal was sought by one of the villager/voter, who succeeded in his venture, but in an appeal proceedings, when the Sarpanch is restored to his office, he has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
3. The election to the post of the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Nalwandi, Taluka and District Beed, was held in December, 2017 and Respondent No.4 (Shri Radhakisan Laxman Mhetre) came to be directly elected as a Sarpanch of village Nalwandi, which comprises of 13 members and he assumed charge of the said post in January, 2018.
4. In the year 2020 and to be precise on 05.02.2020, the petitioner in this petition, filed a complaint with the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (for short, “the VP Act”), seeking an inquiry into the alleged corruption committed by the Sarpanch and the then Village Development Officer and this relief was sought in the backdrop of the allegations made in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the complaint. Upon the complaint being preferred, respondent No.4/ Sarpanch filed his detailed reply denying the allegations levelled against him, on 28.04.2021.
5. The Additional Divisional Commissioner i.e. Respondent No.2, addressed a communication to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, on 15.02.2020 to conduct an inquiry. Pursuant thereto, the fact finding report was called from the office of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dharur and on receipt of the report dated 29.05.2020, the Chief Executive Officer issued a show cause notice to respondent No.4 on 04.11.2020, as to why action should not be taken against him in the wake of the report submitted by the Block Development Officer. Respondent No.4/ Sarpanch submitted his reply on 17.11.2020 and the Chief Executive Officer conducted an inquiry on 17.12.2020 and 30.12.2020. Upon following the principles of natural justice and recording the prima facie opinion that respondent No.4/ Sarpanch is found to be guilty of the alleged charges levelled at Point Nos.1 to 5, which warranted an action under Section 39(1) of the VP Act, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, forwarded his inquiry report along with the reply filed by the Sarpanch, to respondent No.2/ Divisional Commissioner.
6. On 06.07.2021, by making reference to the report of the Chief Executive Officer and also to the reply submitted by respondent No.4/ Sarpanch and upon hearing the parties, the Divisional Commissioner made an attempt to discern the factual aspects and on perusal of the material placed before him, arrived at the conclusion that respondent No.4/Sarpanch
The removal of a duly elected Sarpanch through the democratic process, was found to be improper.
Passing illegal resolution to divest Sarpanch of signing authority despite statutory bar and caution, and deferring welfare funds thereby, constitutes willful misconduct warranting removal of Up-Sarp....
Writ court may dismiss challenge to unreasoned removal order if quashing revives illegal exoneration, upholding merits where consistent tender violations establish misconduct sans misappropriation.
The removal of elected office-bearers requires adherence to principles of natural justice and statutory enquiry provisions.
Removal of elected officials must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair opportunity to defend against charges.
The removal of an elected office-bearer must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair opportunity to defend against allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
