Disqualification of elected officials under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act can be upheld based on misconduct linked to their associates, even if direct involvement is not established.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondents.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1-Hon’ble Minister, Rural Development Department received by the petitioner on 13.05.2024 from the office of respondent No. 3-Zilla Parishad, Akola, thereby confirmed the order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and disqualified the petitioner from the post of member as well as Sarpanch of Gat Gram Panchayat Raher Adgaon by taking recourse of provisions of Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 on account of disgraceful conduct as alleged in the matter.

3. In January 2021, general elections were held and the petitioner is elected as a member of Gram Panchayat Raher Adgaon from Prabhag No. 1 which was reserved for Backward Category (women) and thereafter duly elected as Sarpanch. Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 are also elected as members. The complaint made by one Arif Kha Musa Kha Pathan alleging that a demand for illegal gratification was made by the petitioner's husband in respect of the payment which was to be made for constructing of road under the Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Scheme in the year 2017-2018, though the trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau had failed, that on the said complaint, F.I.R. came to be lodged under Section 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Ashok Borade (ex-husband of the petitioner) on 08.06.2022 vide Crime No. 186/2020.

4. It is contended that respondent No. 1 had directed to the Chief Executive Officer to conduct an enquiry in the matter. The respondent No. 3 without following principles of natural justice and without calling any report of the Secretary of respondent No. 5-Gram Panchayat, prepared the report on the basis of submission of respondent No. 4-Block Development Officer, petitioner and the complainants. The said report is in complete violation of principles of natural justice as notice to the Panchayat is not issued and as such the say of Panchayat was not called for. That, in the submissions, it was pointed out that the petitioner is living separately from Ashok Borade as she had obtained divorce from Ashok Borade through a mutual divorce deed signed by both the parties witnessed by the respectable panchas, as such, the marriage is dissolved on the basis of a divorce deed.

5. The respondent no. 2 allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos.6 to 10 and thereby disqualified the petitioner from the post of member as well as Sarpanch of respondent No. 5-Gram Panchayat. The petitioner had preferred appeal under Section 39 (3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 before the respondent No. 1-Hon'ble Minister. The respondent No. 1 has rejected the appeal and confirmed the order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and disqualified the petitioner from the post of member as well as Sarpanch of Gat Gram Panchayat Raher Adgaon. That, the impugned order which is received by the office of respondent No. 3-Zilla Parishad vide communication dated 14.03.2024, but the respondent No. 3 has not communicated the order dated 23.11.2023 to the petitioner as on today. The petitioner on 13.05.2024 personally enquired in the office of respondent No. 3 and received the said order. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to consider the consent terms of divorce written and notarized. The consent terms which are notarized before the Notary Public speaks about the separation of petitioner and Shri Ashok Borade and, therefore, the petitioner is not responsible for any activity of her ex-husband. It is further submitted that, on a complaint of Arif Kha Musa Kha Pathan, an F.I.R. came to be lodged under Section 7 and 7