IMPORTANT POINT
The Chief Executive Officer must personally conduct the enquiry under Sec. 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and challenges to the enquiry report should be made in the context of ongoing proceedings rather than through separate writ petitions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. - Both the writ petitions have been heard together considering the nature of challenge as raised therein.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.5879 of 2023 has been elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rajanda, Taluka Barshitakli, District Akola. The respondent Nos.5 to 10 in the said writ petition who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2023 filed proceedings under Sec. 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act of 1959') on 3/1/2023 seeking disqualification of the Sarpanch. On such proceedings being filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati a communication dtd. 10/1/2023 was issued by the Divisional Commissioner to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola to conduct an enquiry as contemplated by Sec. 39(1) of the Act of 1959 and submit a report in that regard. On receiving this communication, the Chief Executive Officer on 20/1/2023 issued a communication to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Barshitakli to obtain all relevant information from the concerned parties and after making an enquiry submit a report in that regard. It was further stated that such report/say was directed to be filed on 3/2/2023. Acting on the aforesaid communication, the Block Development Officer called upon the Sarpanch to submit his say in the said matter with a view to conduct necessary enquiry.

3. The communication dtd. 20/1/2023 issued by the Chief Executive Officer to the Block Development Officer as well as the subsequent communication dtd. 20/2/2023 issued by the Block Development Officer have been challenged by the complainants on the ground that the enquiry contemplated under Sec. 39(1) of the Act of 1959 is to be conducted by the Chief Executive Officer himself and the power in that regard cannot be delegated to any other officer below the rank of Chief Executive Officer. While issuing notice in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2023, the communications dtd. 20/1/2023 as well as 20/2/2023 came to be stayed. Thereafter on 13/6/2023, the Block Development Officer submitted his report to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer with regard to the aforesaid proceedings under Sec. 39(1) of the Act of 1959. On receiving the said report, the Chief Executive Officer forwarded the entire record to the Divisional Commissioner by his communication dtd. 26/6/2023.

4. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, Shri S.D. Chopde, learned counsel for the Sarpanch, submitted that the enquiry report dtd. 26/6/2023 as submitted by the Chief Executive Officer was liable to be set aside since such enquiry had been conducted by an officer who was not empowered to do so. The enquiry in question having been conducted by the Block Development Officer and the same having been forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer, it was clear that the Chief Executive Officer himself did not conduct the enquiry as required by Sec. 39(1) of the Act of 1959. The Divisional Commissioner was therefore not entitled to consider the enquiry report dtd. 26/6/2023 in the proceedings under Sec. 39(1) of the Act of 1959 and such report was liable to be set aside. In that regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No.5609 of 2022 (Sau. Aarti W/o Khushal Tavar Versus Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim and others) decided on 15/11/2022, Writ Petition No.7158 of 2017 (Shalik S/o Bolan Dahiwale Versus State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 6/10/2018 as well as the decision in Ankush s/o Pandurang Shinde Versus The State of Maharashtra and others [2022(3) ALL MR 56]. It was thus submitted that after quashing the enquiry report dtd. 26/6/2023, a direction be issued to the Chief Executive Officer to himself conduct the enquiry as required by Sec. 39(1) of the Act of 1959.

5. Shri Ram Karode, learned counsel for the complainants, opposed the aforesaid submissions. According to him, after the communications dtd. 20/1/2023 and 20/2/2023 were challenged b