IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J. Jamadar, J.
Sau. Poonam Bharat Kudale - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Minister of Rural Development - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12667 of 2025
Decided On : 25-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of panchayat election, misconduct inquiry, removal, and appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. parties contend on gravity of misconduct warranting removal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. section 39 mandates inquiry and hearing for removal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. misconduct requires wrongful intent, not negligence; caution for elected officials. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. appellate order shows non-application of mind. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 6. illegal resolution despite caution and fund deferral constitute grave misconduct. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. impugned order quashed; removal order restored. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 19th August, 2025 passed by the Minister, Rural Development and Panchayatraj, Government of Maharashtra in Appeal No. VPM-2025/Á-Ø-07/2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondents No. 5 and 6 – the Up-Sarpanch and Member of Village Panchayat – Hiware, against an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune removing the respondents from the post of Sarpanch and Member of the Village Panchayat in exercise of the power under Section 39 (1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, (“the Act, 1959”) came to be allowed by setting aside the said order of removal.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts can be stated as under:-
3.1 In the general elections for Hiware Village Panchayat, the petitioner was elected as a member and Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat. The Respondent No. 5 was elected as Up-Sarpanch. The Respondent No. 6 was elected as a member of the Panchayat, constituted by nine members.
3.2 The petitioner lodged a dispute with Divisional Commissioner, Pune (R-2) and sought the removal of the Respondents No. 5 and 6 and the other members of the Village Panchayat, purportedly under Section 39 (1) of the Act, 1959. The petitioner alleged various acts of misconduct, disgraceful conduct or negligence in the performance of their duties by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the other members of the Panchayat. It was inter alia alleged that, the proceedings books of the meeting of the Village Panchayat were forged and fabricated, in the monthly meeting of the panchayat held on 23rd January 2023 an illegal resolution to confer the Signing Authority of the Sarpanch upon the Up-Sarpanch was passed though the said subject was not on the agenda of the meeting, false and forged documents were created to cause wrongful gain to the contractor and a wrongful loss to the Panchayat and by making false and motivated allegations the petitioner was made to suffer inquiries, and hindrances were put in the discharge of her duties as the Sarpanch of the Panchayat.
3.3 Upon receipt of the said dispute, in accordance with the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 39 (1), the Chief Executive Officer was directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a report to the Divisional Commissioner. Pursuant thereto, the Chief Executive Officer conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 29th July, 2024.
3.4 The Chief Executive Officer reported that, the inquiry revealed that, in the monthly meeting of the Panchayat dated 23rd January 2023, the resolution to confer the Signing Authority of the Sarpanch upon the Up- Sarpanch/Respondent No. 5, was passed despite the Village Development Officer having apprised the members of the Panchayat that in view of the provisions contained in Section 38 and 57 of the Act, 1959 such resolution cannot be passed. The Respondent No. 6 was the proposer and the Respondent No. 5 was the seconder for the said resolution However, since no guidance was received from the Panchayat Samiti, Purandar, the sa
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors.
Nisar Ahmad Ibrahim Khan Vs. Deolali Cantonment Board and Ors
Passing illegal resolution to divest Sarpanch of signing authority despite statutory bar and caution, and deferring welfare funds thereby, constitutes willful misconduct warranting removal of Up-Sarp....
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 pr....
The central legal point established is the interpretation of 'misconduct' under Section 39(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and the need for strict construction of removal provi....
Writ court may dismiss challenge to unreasoned removal order if quashing revives illegal exoneration, upholding merits where consistent tender violations establish misconduct sans misappropriation.
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.
The removal of a duly elected Sarpanch through the democratic process, was found to be improper.
Subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner on disgraceful conduct justifies disqualification without a conviction under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.
Misconduct under Section 39(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act requires wrongful intention; mere irregularities without intent do not constitute misconduct.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.