Subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner on disgraceful conduct justifies disqualification without a conviction under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.

JUDGMENT :

Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.

RULE.

Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the counsel for the parties.

2. Invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner has assailed the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act of 1959’) which is upheld by the Hon’ble Minister thereby disqualifying the petitioner as Member and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

3. The crucial issue involved in the instant petition is as to whether the petitioner who has been arrayed as an accused in an offence registered against her and her husband under Sections 7, 7(A) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be disqualified as Member and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, even in absence of any material to show the acceptance of bribe amount by the petitioner.

4. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the instant petition is succinctly stated below:-

The petitioner was elected as member of Gram Panchayat Mahuli Jahangir, Taluka and District Amravati, in the elections held on 15.01.2021. The elections for the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch were held on 16.02.2021 and the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. The term of Gram Panchayat is from 16.02.2021 to 15.02.2026. While the petitioner was holding the post of Sarpanch, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Rambhau Ganesh Mondhe, First Information Report came to be registered against her and her husband for offence under Sections 7, 7(A) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . In the said report, it was alleged by the complainant that husband of the petitioner has demanded an amount of Rs.4,000/- for issuance of an experience certificate to be signed by the Sarpanch, which post was held by the petitioner. The report was lodged on 25.09.2023, and the verification of demand was conducted on 26.09.2023. Thereafter,the trap was conducted on 27.09.2023 in which the husband of petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- and accordingly, the offence was registered against the petitioner and her husband.

5. In this background, the respondent no.5, who is a voter and resident of the said village filed an application under Section 39(1) of the Act of 1959 before the Additional Commissioner seeking removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. Taking cognizance of the application, the Additional Commissioner directed the Chief Executive Officer to conduct an enquiry and submit its report. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer submitted its report dated 09.01.2024 under Section 39(1) of the Act of 1959. By considering the report, the Additional Commissioner passed the final order on 07.08.2024 and the petitioner came to be disqualified. Feeling agreed by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 39(3) of the Act of 1959 before the Hon’ble Minister, which came to be rejected by order dated 12.03.2025. The petitioner has raised challenge to both these orders by way of instant petition.

6. The main thrust of submissions advanced by Shri N.A. Gawande, learned counsel for petitioner rests on the contention that there is no material to prove the acts of demand or acceptance of bribe by this petitioner and mere allegations of demand and acceptance by her husband cannot be a reason to disqualify the petitioner as Member and Sarp