1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2024 received on 17.10.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Rural Development, Government of Maharashtra in Appeal No. VPM - 2024 / Case No.108 / PR - 6, Gram Panchayat Chakalpeth, Tq. Chamorshi, Dist: Gadchiroli.

3. The petitioner is Up - Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chakalpeth where as the respondent No.6 was Sarpanch and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 are Members of respondent No.5 Gram Panchayat who were elected in the election held for the term of 2021 - 2026.

4. The Respondent No.1 is the Hon'ble Minister, Rural Development, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralay, Mumbai, respondent No.2 is the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. Respondent No.3 is the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, The Respondent No.4 is the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samitee, Chamorshi, Dist: Gadchiroli and Respondent No.5 is the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chackalpeth, Tq. Chamorshi, Dist: Gadchiroli.

5. On 20.09.2023 the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 7 to 10 filed complaint under S.39 of Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Act, 1958, before the respondent No.2 against the respondent No.6 thereby claiming to disqualify respondent No.6 from the posts of membership of Gram Panchayat on the ground of non - signing of files of Development works, demanding 10% commission from Contractors, non - sanctioning bills of contractors and other administrative defalcations. In support of his contention that the petitioner attached the note sheets submitted by the Secretary for signature. On 06.02.2024, Respondent No.3 after hearing all the parties submitted his report to Respondent No.2 holding that all charges have been proved and Respondent No.6 was held to be liable for action under S.39 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. On 23.07.2023, Respondent No.2 allowed the complaint made by the petitioner under S.39 (1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The Respondent No.6 preferred an appeal under S.39 (3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, before respondent No.1 and on 19.09.2024, respondent No.1 heard the parties and closed the appeal for order.

6. On 17.10.2024, Respondent No. 4 issued communication to the Secretary informing that the appeal is allowed by the order dated 20.09.2024. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Respondent No.1 did not take into consideration facts of the present case and mandate of S.39 (1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act in proper perspective. It is further contended that the Respondent observed that there are lacunas in the working of the respondent No.6 in capacity of the Sarpanch and inspite of that they observed that the Sarpach can not be removed merely on Administrative and Technical grounds.

8. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 lost sight on the fact that the Secretary had placed before Respondent No.6 the Record of the Tender for Signature and approval of the respondent No.6 vide note sheet dated 19.07.2023 and it is further put - forth on 24.07.2023. The Secretary had placed before the Respondent No.6 the note sheet informing that due to non signature and non approval within time, the grant of Government may return back, therefore, again presented the note sheet for approval of the respondent No.6 but she did not sign. All these facts were not properly taken into consideration by the Respondent No. 1 and passed an impugned order, which needs interference by this Court.

9. Learned Counsel for petitioner relied on Sandip Ramesh Khidbide v. Pratima Prakash Gaikar and others, 2023 (3) All MR 1.

10. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6 contended that in the preliminary objection the Respondent No. 6 has categorically stated that, Respondent No. 3 has not considered the written submission submitted by the Res