JUDGEMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by his removal from the elected post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Anji (Mothi), District – Wardha, under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner passed impugned order dated 23.08.2021, removing the petitioner from the elected post of Sarpanch, on the ground that he was found guilty of neglect in performance of his duties. The petitioner had approached the respondent No.1 under Section 39 (3) of the said Act, to challenge the order of his removal, but the respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the said order.

3. The petitioner was directly elected as Sarpanch of the said Municipal Council for a period of five years in an election held in March, 2019, thereby showing that his term would expire in the year 2024. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 approached the respondent No.3 – Chief Executive Officer (CEO) with complaint against the petitioner and claimed that he deserved to be removed from the said post of Sarpanch. The respondent No.3 – CEO took into consideration the complaints submitted by respondent Nos.5 and 6. It appears that the said respondent No.3 - CEO conducted a preliminary enquiry into the matter and sent a communication to the respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner, stating that he found prima facie substance in the complaints submitted by respondent Nos.5 and 6. Thereupon, the respondent No.3 – CEO sought permission of the respondent No.2 - Additional Commissioner for conducting an enquiry against the petitioner. In response, the respondent No.2 - Additional Commissioner appears to have granted permission and the enquiry was initiated by respondent No.3 – CEO.

4. On the basis of the report submitted by the respondent No.3 – CEO, on 05.11.2020, the respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner exercised power under Section 39(1) of the aforesaid Act, to call upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. On 20.07.2021, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the report of the respondent No.3 – CEO. The petitioner contended that adverse findings rendered in the said report were not borne out from the record and that they were unsustainable. It was submitted that the Gram Panchayat acted in a collective manner and that the petitioner, as the Sarpanch, could not be singled out in the context of decisions taken by the Gram Panchayat collectively. It was highlighted by the petitioner on each issue raised in the report of the respondent No.3- CEO that no ingredient of Section 39(1) of the said Act was made out and that therefore, the proceedings initiated against him deserved to be dropped.

5. By order dated 23.08.2021, the respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner considered the material on record and rendered findings against the petitioner on six issues. Thereupon, the respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner rendered a finding that the petitioner was guilty of neglect in performing his duties. On this basis, the respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner passed the order removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. It is significant that in the operative portion of the impugned order, the respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner recorded that the application/complaint of the respondent No.3 – CEO was being allowed and the enquiry report submitted by the said respondent was being confirmed.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 39(3) of the said Act before the respondent No.1. Various grounds of challenge were raised on behalf of the petitioner in the appeal proceedings. Hearing was conducted on the prayer for interim stay, but since no order was passed thereon, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.4324/2021, before this Court. By order dated 28.10.2021, this Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent No.1 to decid