Back
ARUN R. PEDNEKER
Dnyaneshwar Shridhar Matkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
With consent of parties, heard finally.
3. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Minister in an appeal filed under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) confirming the order dated 17.01.2023, passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad thereby removing the petitioner as Sarpanch under section 39(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has held the petitioner/Sarpanch guilty of misconduct in discharge of his duties. The Commissioner has held that the petitioner has issued succession certificates beyond the authority vested in him.
Brief Facts
4. The petitioner was elected as member of the Grampanchayat Khirdi from the General category in the election held on 15.01.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch on 08.02.2021. On 28.04.2022, a dispute was raised by respondent no.8 – Sunil Tukaram Ghusale, before respondent no.3 – the Additional Divisional Commissioner, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner has issued succession certificate without any authority and, as such, pray
Mandatory notice to the panchayat in an inquiry under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act is essential, and failure to comply renders the inquiry report and subsequent orders inva....
The central legal point established is the interpretation of 'misconduct' under Section 39(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and the need for strict construction of removal provi....
Misconduct under Section 39(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act requires wrongful intention; mere irregularities without intent do not constitute misconduct.
The court ruled that mere errors or irregularities in the discharge of duties do not constitute misconduct unless they are detrimental to the institution's prestige or involve willful misconduct.
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 judgment establishes that actions constituting misconduct under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 should not be condoned, even under the policy of woman empowerment, and removal for pr....
Subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner on disgraceful conduct justifies disqualification without a conviction under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.
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
