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 proved misconduct serves a larger public interest and strengthens democracy.

JUDGMENT

N. J. Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails a judgment and order dated 26th May, 2022, passed by the learned Minister (Rural Development) in VPM/2022/SR 52/PR6, whereby and whereunder the Appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 against an order of removal from the office of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Ambivali, Tal. Mahad, Dist. Raigad, came to be allowed by setting aside the order dated 19th April, 2022, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan division, under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 ('the Act, 1959').

3. The Petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts:-

(a) Petitioner is a member of Village Panchayat, Ambivali. Respondent No. 1 was directly elected as Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, Ambivali in the election held in the year 2019.

(b) The petitioner had filed an application being application number Karya3/GP 3/Ambivali/2021/1259, seeking the removal of the respondent No. 1 from the office of Sarpanch alleging misconduct. The substance of the application was that according to the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1959 and the Government Resolution dated 6th December, 2006, Village Water Supply and Sanitation Committee ('Committee') was established at Ambivali. A separate account was opened in the name of the said Committee. The said account was to be jointly operated by the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat in the capacity as the Chairperson and Anganwadi Sevika appointed for the particular village. Mrs. Vaishali Dasgaonkar was the Anganwadi Sevika and the Secretary of the said Committee for the year 2014 to 2018.

(c) Government Resolution dated 30th June, 2018, mandated change in operation of the account maintained in the name of the Committee. Instead of Anganwadi Sevika, Asha Sevika came to be authorized to jointly operate the account with the Sarpanch of the village. Mrs. Ashwini Rajmane came to be appointed as the Asha Sevika for Ambivali village vide order dated 7th September, 2018. In conformity with the Government Resolution, the Village Panchayat Ambivali also passed a resolution changing the mandate to operate the account maintained in the name of the Committee.

(d) The petitioner alleged, despite the respondent No. 1 being fully aware of the change in the mandate to operate the account, the respondent No. 1 withdrew a sum of Rs.15,549/-, vide Cheque No.04834 dated 1st January, 2020, jointly drawn by respondent No.1 and Ms. Dasgaonkar, Anganwadi Sevika. The respondent No.1 thus misappropriated the amount of Rs.15,549/-. In the process, the respondent No.1 allegedly violated the provisions of Rule 44, 54 and 56 as well as Rule 15 of Schedule 3 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Accounts Code, 2011. To facilitate the misappropriation, the respondent No. 1 in a meeting of the Committee dated 11th December, 2019, got approved a resolution to change the mandate to operate the bank account contrary to the Government Resolution. Instead of Asha Sevika, the Anganwadi Sevika was authorized to operate the bank account jointly and thereby the amount was drawn by a self cheque. The petitioner thus alleged that the respondent No. 1 was guilty of gross misconduct.

4. An inquiry was caused to be conducted. The respondent No. 1 gave her explanation. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Raigad directed the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mahad to submit a report. Based on report of the Block Development Officer and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 1, the Chief Executive Officer Raigad, Zilla Parishad submitted a report dated 13th December, 2021, to the Divisional Commissioner. An opportunity of hearing was again provided by the Divisional Commissioner. After appraisal of the report of the Chief Executive Officer and the material on record, the Divisional Commissioner was persuaded to pass an order