The main legal point established in the judgment is that being caught red-handed accepting a bribe constitutes moral turpitude, justifying removal from office under Section 59 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to quash and set aside an order dated 04.09.2021 passed by the Development Commissioner, which in turn had confirmed order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the District Development Office, Aravalli, by which in exercise of powers under Section 59 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”) the petitioner who held the office of Sapanch was removed.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh O. Gidiya appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the FIR has been registered against the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act however, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. It is submitted that as there was a dispute between two villagers with regard to the eve-teasing of one lady, the petitioner had acted as a mediator to get the matter settled and it is in regard of this settlement that the amount was received as a part of settlement when the trap was carried out. It is submitted that the receipt of money during the trap has nothing to do with the allegations made in the FIR pertaining to passing of resolution to excavate and deepen the village pond.

2.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the facts of the case, the action would not attract a question of moral turpitude against the petitioner and therefore, the orders passed by the authority deserve to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the authorities have not taken into consideration all the relevant aspects especially has not at all considered the issues raised by the petitioner before such authorities concerning the nature of evidence. It is submitted that though the reference is made to the recording pertaining to the subject matter of bribe, such recording was not at all examined either by the District Development Officer or the Development commissioner and therefore, any finding by these authorities based on it are merely on surmises and therefore, orders of both the authorities deserve to be set aside.

2.2. Learned advocate has thereafter, referred to the decision of this Court in case of Ramanbhai Santubhai Raut v/s. State of Gujarat, reported in 2021 LawSuit (Guj) 2160, submitting that in an identical facts of the case where the allegations pertain to the offence of corruption, there the Court had interfered and set aside the order of suspension of that petitioner. Learned advocate emphasizes that the facts of the case are quite similar and in fact even after the investigation pursuant to the FIR, period of two years has lapse, still no charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, it is submitted that the Investigating Agency has not been able to garner sufficient evidence to charge-sheet the petitioner and therefore, this aspect is relevant which was not considered by the authorities.

2.3. Learned advocate has thereafter drawn attention of this Court to other judgments of this Court in case of Aatulbhai Tapubhai Nakum v/s. State of Gujarat and others, reported in2016(2)GLR 1007, unreported judgment in case of Anakbhai Chhanabhai Sankhat v/s. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.12134 of 2020 and unreported judgment in case of Bhavansinh Bhupatsinh Mori v/s. Additional Development Commissioner and Another, in Special Civil Application No.14582 of 2021. By drawing attention of this Court, it is submitted that merely registration of an FIR is not sufficient to attract the clause of moral turpitude so as to invoke provisions of Section 59 of the Act.3] As against this, learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel appearing for the respondent-authorities submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are clear and make out the offence at prima-facie stage and hence, the offence has been registered and in the allegations ade, the role is also attributed which would attract the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned advocate has submitted