Akil Kureshi, J.

1. These petitions have been referred to Division Bench by learned Single Judge by an order dated 19.3.10. The learned Single Judge framed the following question for consideration of the Division Bench.

While the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 empower the Competent Authority to adjudicate upon misconduct in the discharge of his duties or any disgraceful conduct or abuse of powers, or persistent default in the performance of duties and functions under the Act by any member, sarpanch or upa-sarpanch of the panchayat, for his removal or disqualification, can an appeal from the decision of such adjudication be preferred by the original complainant? ; and whether the words "any person aggrieved" occurring in Sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Act would include the original complainant in the context of the purpose and relevant provisions of the Act ?

Brief facts of the cases are as follows:

Special Civil Application No. 12298/09 is filed by Deputy Sarpanch of Zarola Gram Panchayat. He had filed complaint dated 18.4.08 against the Sarpanch of the village Panchayat who is respondent No. 1 in the petition. In the said complaint made to the District Development Officer of Anand District, the petitioner had levelled allegations against the Sarpanch regarding misuse of her powers and irregularities in discharge of duties.

2. On the basis of allegations made by the petitioner, preliminary inquiry was conducted by a committee of three members, including the Taluka Development Officer and Director of Village Development Agency, Anand. The Committee submitted its report dated 29th July, 2008 and concluded that respondent No. 1 had committed serious financial irregularities. The District Development Officer thereupon issued show cause notice to respondent No. 1 on 22nd August, 2008 calling upon her why she should not be removed from the office of Sarpanch in exercise of powers under Section 57(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (Act for short). Respondent No. 1 replied to the said show cause notice under communication dated 4.9.08 and denied the charges. The petitioner placed his representation on record before the District Development Officer under communication dated 22nd September, 2008 and contended that respondent No. 1 was involved in number of financial irregularities and had misappropriated public funds. Respondent No. 2, District Development Officer, however, by his order dated 26th February, 2009 dropped the charges and withdrew the show cause notice holding that irregularities were not of serious nature. It is the case of the petitioner that since the inquiry against respondent No. 1 was initiated at his instance, he would be a "person aggrieved" as referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Act and he could file an appeal against the decision of the District Development Officer.

3. In Special Civil Application No. 13812 of 2009 petitioner is Deputy Sarpanch of Limbara Gram Panchayat. The petitioner had complained against the alleged irregularities of the Sarpanch of village, respondent No. 3 herein to the District Development Officer, alleging, inter alia that Sarpanch had remained absent in the meeting of the Panchayat held in March, 2008 and failed to pass budget within time. The petitioner had also made further representation with respect to the commissions and omissions of respondent No. 3 in discharge of her duties. On 16th March, 2009, a show cause notice was issued to respondent No. 3 why she should not be removed as Sarpanch. However, by an order dated 5.6.09, the District Development Officer dropped the proceedings against respondent No. 3. The petitioner appealed against the decision of the District Development Officer before the Additional Development Commissioner who dismissed the appeal by an order dated 13.11.09 holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the appeal relying on a decision of the learned single J