Supervisory negligence does not constitute misconduct under the Gujarat Panchayats Act, and punitive decisions must be supported by clear evidence of involvement in wrongdoing.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, Gandhinagar as well the order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Mamlatdar, Petlad whereby, the Mamlatdar, concluded that the petitioner has failed in performing her duties and directed Taluka Development Officer to move proposal for initiating the proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Gujarat Pachayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1993’).

2. Tersely stated are the facts:

2.1 Petitioner at the relevant point of time, was the Sarpanch of Demol Gram Panchayat. In the year 2008, proposal was made to Taluka Development Officer, seeking permission for 282 trees-felling. After undertaking assessment, the petitioner together with Talati-cum-Mantri, had drawn the panchnama to the effect that 282 trees which are damaged, are required to be removed. The market value of the said trees, was determined at Rs.82,900/-. Panchkyas was also sent together with other documents. Considering the proposal of the petitioner, the Taluka Development Officer, Petlad on 07.06.2008, issued the permission, fixing the upset price at Rs.1,30,000/- with respect to 282 trees. It is the case of the petitioner that notice was published in the newspaper and as a result of auction proceedings, respondent no. 2 was allotted the work of felling of trees. According to the petitioner allegations were made that over and above 282 trees, excess felling of trees has taken place, i.e. 60 more trees were cut.

2.2 As a result whereof, FIR was lodged against the respondent no. 3 on 30.07.2008 for commission of offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Discernibly, the respondent no. 1 preferred an application before the Mamlatdar, complaining the illegal felling of trees which led to the proceedings under the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Saurashtra Felling of Trees (Infliction of Punishment) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1951’) and ultimately, by passing an order dated 12.08.2009, fine of Rs.12,000/- was imposed. While doing so, the Mamlatdar also concluded that the petitioner has failed in performing her duties and direction was issued to the Taluka Development Officer to move the proposal for initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, as the petitioner, has failed to perform her duties for, the properties of the panchayat, have not been protected.

2.3 The order of the Mamlatdar was challenged before the Deputy Collector, Petlad who, passed an order dated 07.11.2009. Appeal filed by the petitioner, though was rejected, petitioner was exonerated on the ground of her non-involvement. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Secretary, Forest & Environment Department who, passed an order dated 26.04.2011 whereby, the order passed by the Deputy Collector, was quashed and set aside and the order of the Mamlatdar dated 12.08.2009, was confirmed. Slight modification was ordered by the Deputy Secretary and amount of penalty, was directed to be paid by all the respondents, i.e. the petitioner and respondents nos. 2 and 3 herein. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.

3. Mr. Utsav R. Shah, learned advocate for Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings under the provisions of sub-section (1)