Removal of an elected Panchayat office bearer is a stigmatic action requiring a fair hearing and systematic inquiry. It should only be ordered in the rarest cases where gross negligence or misconduct is proven by cogent evidence, rather than on the basis of casual or unsubstantiated allegations.

ORDER :

VISHAL MISHRA, J.

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 28.08.2024 vide Annexure-P/5 passed by the respondent no. 3 as well as the Appellate order dated 31.01.2025 vide Annexure-P/7 passed by the respondent no. 2 affirming the order dated 28.8.2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1993") for removal of the respondent no. 5 who is the President / Sarpanch of the Janpad Panchayat, has been rejected.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an elected member of the Janpad Panchayat, Amla, District Betul (MP), from Ward no.12 of Janpad Panchayat, Amla, District Betul from 14.07.2022. In terms of Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, the President / Sarpanch shall call a meeting of the concerned Panchayat at least once every month, and if the President / Sarpanch fails to do so, then the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Panchayat shall issue a notice of the meeting. If the President/Sarpanch fails to comply with the provision on three occasions, then he/she shall be liable to be removed from the post as per the provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 1993. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 who is the President/Sarpanch called and conducted meeting of the Panchayat in the year 2022 and thereafter, the mandate of the Section 44 was not followed i.e. calling and holding of the meeting from 21.02.2023 till 22.09.2023, resulting the petitioner filed an application under Section 40 of the Act of 1993 on 25.09.2023 before the Respondent no. 3 seeking removal of Respondent no.5 from the post of President / Sarpanch. On the said application, notice was issued to the respondent no. 5 and after receiving the notice, the respondent no. 5 filed the reply giving the reasons therein. After considering the reply submitted by the respondent no. 5, the respondent no. 3 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on erroneous grounds. It is clearly reflected from the reply filed by the respondent no. 5 that the meetings were not called on monthly basis, therefore, the provisions were violated and it is not on one occasion that the meeting was called with delay. On repeated occasions, the meeting were called with delay. Therefore, in terms of Section 40 of the Act, 1993 the respondent no. 5 is not liable to hold the post. On appeal being preferred against the same under Section 91 of the Act of 1993, the same was also rejected upholding the order passed by the Additional Collector.

3. It is argued that in terms of Section 40 of the Act of 1993, removal of the office bearers of the Panchayat can be on various grounds including the grounds that continuance of the President / Office Bearer is undesirable in the interest of public. The said aspect was not considered by the authorities. No steps were taken by the respondent no. 5 to call for a meeting on regular basis i.e. at least once every month. Therefore, this petition is filed.

4. On notice being issued, reply has been filed by the respondents / State denying the petition averments and they have supported the impugned order. It is contended by the State counsel that the petitioner has not disclosed any violation of the fundamental rights or any illegality in the orders passed by Respondent no.3. There is no demonstration by the petitioner regarding any arbitrariness, illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the authorities. The allegations made by the Petitioner are vague, speculative, and lack material evidence to substantiate claims of gross negligence or misconduct by Respondent No.5, as required for his removal in terms of Section 40 of the Act of 1993.

5. Respondent no. 5 by filing a reply has contended that a report was called from the prescribed authority which was submitted on 18.1.2024, in which, the CEO has given the det