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.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Mehare, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties.

2. The petitioners were the duly elected members of the Village Panchayat. They were elected in the month of January 2021. Petitioner no.1 was elected as Sarpanch. Respondent no.7 is the husband of the contested candidate against the panel of petitioners. He had a political rivalry; hence, he made the false complaints against them. On his complaint, an inquiry under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 ('Act of 1959' for short) was initiated. Respondent no.7 alleged against the petitioners that they by misusing the powers prepared a bogus and duplicate Resolution No.5 dated 18.11.2021. They have forged the proceeding book and passed the illegal resolution that complainant obstructed way to the field of villagers and referred it to the Tahasildar. However, the said subject was not in Resolution No.5. The Gram Sevak informed him by letter dated 28.03.2022 that the Village Panchayat has not passed a resolution about road Kapilapuri to Ainapurwadi or of Gut No.21 and 22. The Village Panchayat had no right pass such resolution. Respondent no.4 in complaint was the husband of petitioner no.1. He interfered with the administration of the Village Panchayat. He puts the bogus signature of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 did not attend the Village Panchayat meetings. All petitioners in conspiracy were preparing the false and bogus record of the Village Panchayat. He prayed to remove the petitioners under Section 39 of the Act of 1959.

3. The Additional Commissioner followed the procedure of law and called for the report of the Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer submitted a detailed report holding that under the Act of 1959, the Sarpanch is not responsible to maintain the proceeding book. The Sarpanch and Village Panchayat members could not be held responsible for not maintaining the Village Panchayat record particularly the proceeding book. Considering the report of the Chief Executive Officer, the Additional Commissioner dismissed the complaint of respondent no.7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, respondent no.7 preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Minister. The Hon'ble Minister re-appreciating the fact and the evidence, allowed the complaint of respondent no.7 and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner. He further removed all petitioners from the office of Village Panchayat as well as from the post of Sarpanch.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Hon'ble Minister has passed the arbitrary order ignoring the relevant provisions of the Act of 1959. Writing and maintaining the Village Panchayat meeting proceeding is the responsibility of the Gram Sevak (Secretary) and not the Sarpanch and the members. The members of the Village Panchayat in any event should not be held responsible for maintaining the proceeding book. Therefore, no misconduct has been proved against them. If the resolution is passed for removal of obstruction of the road, at the most it may be irregularity but cannot be a misconduct in discharge of the duties. It is a statutory duty of the members of the Village Panchayat to resolve the problems of the villagers. A complaint signed by the villagers including Vasant Sarjerao Shinde about obstructing the way to their field was received to the Village Panchayat. It was forwarded to the Tahasildar for taking appropriate action. For that purpose, the resolution was passed. Respondent No.7 was aggrieved by the said decision of the Village Panchayat. Beside it he already had the grievance of losing his wife in the elections against the petitioner's panel. In the application of Vasant Sarjerao Shinde, no gut number or name of Village Ainapurwadi was mentioned. Therefore, the Gram Sevak correctly replied to the application of respondent no.7 that there is no resolution in proceeding book about the road ru