Point of Law: For taking action under Section 41-A for removal of President, Vice-President or Chairman of any Committee, power is conferred on the State Government with no provision of any appeal. The action of removal casts a serious stigma on the personal and public life of the concerned office-bearer and may result in his/her disqualification to hold such office for the next term. The exercise of power, therefore, has serious civil consequences on the status of an office bearer. There are no sufficient guidelines in the provisions of Section 41-A as to the manner in which the power has to be exercised, except that it requires that reasonable opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to the office bearer proceeded against. Keeping in view the nature of the power and the consequences that flows on its exercise it has to be held that such power can be invoked by the State Government only for very strong and weighty reason. Such a power is not to be exercised for minor irregularities in discharge of duties by the holder of the elected post. The provision has to be construed in strict manner because the holder of office occupies it by election and he/she is deprived of the office by an executive order in which the electorate has no chance of participation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Vikas Nair, learned advocate for Mr. Nimesh Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr Ishan Joshi, learned AGP for respondents no. 1, 2 and 4, Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned advocate for the respondent no. 3 and Ms. Neha M. Kayastha, learned advocate for the respondent no. 5.

2. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 – Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar, confirming the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the District Development Officer, Mehsana by which the petitioner has been removed from the office of the Sarpanch of the Langhnaj Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.

3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Langhnaj Gram Panchayat in 2016. It is his case that certain development works were being carried out on gauchar land bearing survey nos. 2525 and 283 for the purposes of development of a lake. Since there were trees on the land, on 26.02.2018, permission from the Mamlatdar, Mehsana – respondent no. 4 was obtained to cut down 469 trees on the property. The contract for tree-felling was given to one Shri Kanuji Khodaji Thakore. It appears that due to some negligence on the part of the labourers of the contractor, the labourers cut down 3 trees more than the required number and therefore a case was registered against the petitioner and the contractor under the provisions of The Saurashtra Felling of Trees (Infliction of Punishment) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1951'). By an order dated 31.12.2018, the petitioner and the contractor under the tree-felling act were fined and imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000/- each. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Mehsana which also stood dismissed.

3.1 It appears that during the pendency of the appeal, the District Development Officer, on 08.02.2019, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner interalia stating that when a contract was given to fell 469 trees, the contractor's labourers without permission cut 3 other trees which resulted in loss of tree cover. According to the District Development Officer, the petitioner failed to remain present at the site to supervise treefelling and therefore he had committed misconduct and was therefore liable to be removed as a Sarpanch of the Langhnaj Gram Panchayat. In the perception of the District Development Officer, the petitioner was guilty of misconduct in discharge of duties, had committed disgraceful conduct and abused his power and therefore deserved to be removed as a Sarpanch.

3.2 The petitioner replied, pursuant to which, the District Development Officer by an order dated 26.08.2019 in exercise of powers under section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 removed the Sarpanch. On an appeal to the Development Commissioner, the Development Commissioner by an order dated 03.03.2020 confirmed the order of removal.

4. Mr. Vikas Nair, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the contractor in discharge of his contract had removed three trees which ought not to have been removed. The allegation in the show cause notice that the petitioner ought to have remained present and in failing to do so the petitioner had committed misconduct, was not a circumstance which would warrant exercise of powers under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.

4.1 Mr. Nair, learned advocate for the petitioner would further submit that action was taken against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of The Saurashtra Felling of Trees (Infliction of Punishment) Act, 1951 for cutting three additional trees and the petitioner had paid a fine of Rs.30,000/-. The aspect of cutting of additional trees and the failure of the petitioner to remain present and prevent such cutting would not be such a failure which would constitute misconduct in discharge of his d