Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR
Sau. Poonam Bharat Kudale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Minister of Rural Development – Respondent
| 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
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
