SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 367

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Kirthika i/by Mr. Pratik Deshmukh
For the Respondent: Smt. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP, Mr. Pandurang Gaikwad (Patil), Mr. Drupad Patil i/by Mr. Namit Pansare

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-Sarpanch and Member.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Sections 39(1), 38 and 57 - Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959 - Rule 9 - Removal of Up-Sarpanch and Member - Dispute alleging misconduct including passing resolution to confer signing authority on Up-Sarpanch despite Village Development Officer cautioning illegality under Act provisions vesting executive power in Sarpanch - Deferring expenditure of welfare funds for women, children, backward classes and persons with disability awaiting guidance on illegal resolution - Holding meeting without quorum - Inquiry by Chief Executive Officer; Divisional Commissioner removed Up-Sarpanch and Member holding acts as misconduct - Minister allowed appeal observing resolution not implemented hence misconduct not grave enough - High Court under Article 227 quashed Minister's order for non-application of mind and perversity; restored removal order holding acts evince wrongful intent to usurp Sarpanch's authority and paralyze panchayat functioning. (Paras 3, 7-11, 30-42)

(B) Misconduct - Definition and import - Transgression of established rule, forbidden act, willful improper behavior implying wrongful intention; not mere negligence, carelessness or error of judgment - Construed in context of statutory duties. (Paras 24-26)

(C) Removal of elected office bearers - Strict compliance with statutory procedure and proof of misconduct essential - Balances public interest against disenfranchisement of electorate's choice; proceedings must accord natural justice. (Paras 26-28)

Facts of the case:
Sarpanch elected; Up-Sarpanch and Member passed illegal resolution transferring signing authority despite caution; deferred welfare expenditures citing pending guidance; allegedly held meeting without quorum. Inquiry confirmed irregularities; Divisional Commissioner removed them. Minister set aside removal in appeal as resolution unimplemented. Sarpanch challenged appellate order under Article 227.

Findings of Court:
Resolution passed in defiance of statute and caution; deferral of funds demonstrated implementation to paralyze functioning; wrongful intent to divest Sarpanch of powers proved misconduct; other members not liable but proposer and seconder held responsible.

Issues: Whether acts constitute misconduct under Section 39(1); whether appellate order perverse for ignoring gravity of misconduct and non-application of mind.

Ratio Decidendi: Passing illegal resolution to usurp Sarpanch's statutory executive powers despite explicit caution, and leveraging it to stall welfare expenditures, amounts to willful misconduct; mere non-implementation no bar as intent and paralyzing effect evident; appellate re-appraisal must address findings, not downplay on flimsy grounds.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top