WP 12667-25.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12667 OF 2025

Sau. Poonam Bharat Kudale,

Age: 31 Yrs. Occp: Business,

R/o. Hiware, Tal. Purandar,

Dist. Pune. ...Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,

Through Minister of Rural Development,

Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

2. Divisional Commissioner,

Pune Division, Pune.

3. Chief Executive Of�cer,

Zilla Parishad, Pune.

4. Block Development Of�cer,

Panchayat Samittee, Purandar.

5. Ramdas Dattatray Kudale

6. Sagar Shivaji Kudale,

Res. 5 and 6 residing at Hiware,

Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ 

…Respondents

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Ms. Kirthika i/by Mr. Pratik Deshmukh, for the Petitioner.

Smt. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and

2 - State.

Mr. Pandurang Gaikwad (Patil), for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Drupad Patil i/by Mr. Namit Pansare, for Respondent Nos.

5 and 6.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CORAM :N. J. JAMADAR, J.

RESERVED ON :23

rd

DECEMBER 2025

PRONOUNCED ON :25

th

FEBRUARY 2026

SAINATH, PA 1/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

JUDGMENT:

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the

consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard �nally.

2.By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India the petitioner assails the legality, propriety and

correctness of an order dated 19

th

August, 2025 passed by

the Minister, Rural Development and Panchayatraj,

Government of Maharashtra in Appeal No. VPM-2025/ �. �.

07/2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the

Respondents No. 5 and 6 – the Up-Sarpanch and Member

of Village Panchayat – Hiware, against an order passed by

the Divisional Commissioner, Pune removing the

respondents from the post of Sarpanch and Member of the

Village Panchayat in exercise of the power under Section

39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959,

(“the Act, 1959”) came to be allowed by setting aside the

said order of removal.

3.Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts

can be stated as under:-

SAINATH, PA 2/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

3.1In the general elections for Hiware Village Panchayat,

the petitioner was elected as a member and Sarpanch o f

the Village Panchayat. The Respondent No. 5 was elected

as Up-Sarpanch. The Respondent No. 6 was elected as a

member of the Panchayat, constituted by nine members.

3.2The petitioner lodged a dispute with Divisional

Commissioner, Pune (R-2) and sought the removal of the

Respondents No. 5 and 6 and the other members of th e

Village Panchayat, purportedly under Section 39(1) of the

Act, 1959. The petitioner alleged various acts of

misconduct, disgraceful conduct or negligence in the

performance of their duties by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

and the other members of the Panchayat. It was

inter alia

alleged that, the proceedings books of the meeting of the

Village Panchayat were forged and fabricated, in the

monthly meeting of the panchayat held on 23

rd

January

2023 an illegal resolution to confer the Signing Authority of

the Sarpanch upon the Up-Sarpanch was passed though

the said subject was not on the agenda of the meeting ,

false and forged documents were created to cause wrongful

gain to the contractor and a wrongful loss to the Panchayat

and by making false and motivated allegations the

SAINATH, PA 3/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

petitioner was made to suffer inquiries, and hindrances

were put in the discharge of her duties as the Sarpanch of

the Panchayat.

3.3Upon receipt of the said dispute, in accordance with

the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 39(1),

the Chief Executive Of�cer was directed to conduct an

inquiry and submit a report to the Divisional

Commissioner. Pursuant thereto, the Chief Executive

Of�cer conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on

29

th

July, 2024.

3.4The Chief Executive Of�cer reported that, the inquiry

revealed that, in the monthly meeting of the Panchayat

dated 23

rd

January 2023, the resolution to confer the

Signing Authority of the Sarpanch upon the Up-

Sarpanch/Respondent No. 5, was passed despite the

Village Development Of�cer having apprised the members

of the Panchayat that in view of the provisions contained in

Section 38 and 57 of the Act, 1959 such resolution cannot

be passed. The Respondent No. 6 was the proposer and the

Respondent No. 5 was the seconder for the said resolution

However, since no guidance was received from the

SAINATH, PA 4/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

Panchayat Samiti, Purandar, the said resolution was not

implemented.

3.5Secondly, the Respondent No. 5 / Up-Sarpanch and

other members of the Village Panchayat were found guilty

of misconduct in not taking a decision on the expenditure

of Women and Child, Backward Classes and Persons with

disability Welfare Funds on the ground that, the guidance

on the resolution dated 23

rd

January 2023 regarding the

signing authority was awaited.

3.6Thirdly, on 25

th

February 2022, the monthly meeting

of the Panchayat was held under the Chairmanship of the

Respondent No. 5 / Up-Sarpanch, though there was no

quorum and, thus, the Respondent No. 5 and the

concerned Village Of�cer were responsible for holding such

meeting in breach of the provisions contained in Rule 9 of

the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959.

3.7After appraisal of the aforesaid report and the other

material on record and hearing the parties, by an order

dated 31

st

December 2024, the Divisional Commissioner

allowed the dispute �led by the petitioner, and the

Respondent No. 5 was removed from the post of Up-

SAINATH, PA 5/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

Sarpanch and Member, and Respondent No. 6 was

removed from the post of Member of the Panchayat.

3.8The Divisional Commissioner was of the view that,

though the other members had supported the resolution to

confer the Signing Authority on the Up-Sarpanch, instead

of Sarpanch, yet, they cannot be held liable. However, the

Respondent No. 6, who was the proposer and the

Respondent No. 5, who was the seconder, were liable for

passing the said illegal resolution despite the Village

Of�cer cautioning the Panchayat against passing such

resolution. Likewise, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were

guilty of misconduct in deferring the expenditure of the

funds meant for Women and Child, Backward Classes and

Persons with disability, on the pretext that, the guidance

on the resolution passed in the meeting dated 23

rd

January

2023 was awaited. The Divisional Commissioner held that,

the charge of holding the meeting on 25

th

February 2022,

under the Chairmanship of the Respondent No. 5, without

quorum cannot be said to have been proved as it was

debatable whether the �fth member of the Panchayat was

not present in the said meeting.

SAINATH, PA 6/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

4.Being aggrieved, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

preferred an appeal before the State Government unde r

Section 39(3) of the Act, 1959.

5.By the impugned order, the Minister, Rural

Development and Panchayatraj was persuaded to allow the

appeal. The Minister observed that, since the resolution to

transfer the Signing Authority was not implemented, the

alleged misconduct attributed to the Respondent Nos. 5

and 6 cannot be said to be of such degree as to entail their

removal under Section 39 of the Act, 1959. Thus, the order

of removal of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was set aside.

6.Being aggrieved and dissatis�ed with the order

passed by the State Government in Appeal, the petitioner

has invoked the writ jurisdiction.

7.I have heard Ms. Kirthika the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar – the learned AGP for

the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State, Mr. Pandurang

Gaikwad the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3

and 4, and Mr. Drupad Patil the learned Counsel for the

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, at some length. The learne d

SAINATH, PA 7/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

Counsel for the parties took the Court through the

material on record.

8.Ms. Kirthika the learned Counsel for the petitioner

mounted a multifold challenge to the impugned order. First

and foremost, Ms. Kirthika would urge that, the impugned

order suffers from a clear non-application of mind and

borders on an order sans reasons. The Minister has simply

reproduced the report of the CEO and the �ndings of the

Divisional Commissioner and, thereafter, in the ultimate

paragraph set aside the well reasoned order passed by the

Divisional Commissioner by merely recording that, the

alleged misconduct was not serious enough to warrant the

removal of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Ms. Kirthika would

urge, the anxiety and haste on the part of the Minister to

set aside the order of removal is manifested in the second

judgment and order dated 03

rd

November 2025 delivered in

the very same appeal. On this count alone, according to

Ms. Kirthika, the impugned order deserves to be quashed

and set aside.

9.Secondly, the Minister was not at all justi�ed in

downplaying the grave misconduct by taking refuge in the

SAINATH, PA 8/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

fact that the resolution to transfer the Signing Authority

was not acted upon. The gravity of the misconduct can be

gauged from the fact that the said resolution was passed

despite the Village Development Of�cer apprising the

Members of the Panchayat that under the provisions of the

Act, 1959, such course was illegally impermissible.

10.Thirdly, the Minister had not at all adverted to the

other counts of misconduct. Deliberate failure to expend

the funds of the Village Panchayat meant for the

development of Women and children, Backward Classes

and Persons with disability, was a serious misconduct for

which the Divisional Commissioner had found the

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 guilty. The Appellate Authority

has not at all delved into the said aspect of the matter and,

by recording �imsy reasons, set aside the order of removal.

11.Lastly, Ms. Kirthika would urge, even the charge of

holding the meeting on 25

th

February 2022 without

quorum can be said to have been duly proved from the

material on record. Ms. Kirthika laid emphasis on the fact

that, the said conduct demonstrates an intent to usurp the

authority of the Sarpanch. Therefore, the impugned order,

SAINATH, PA 9/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

being wholly perverse, deserves to be quashed and set

aside.

12.Ms. Nimbalkar the learned AGP attempted to support

the impugned order. It was submitted that, inadvertently

the second order dated 03

rd

November 2023 was released

from the of�ce of the Minister. However, there is no change

in the second order from the �rst one.

13.Mr. Drupad Patil, the learned Counsel for the

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, made a strenuous effort to

support the impugned order. It was submitted that, th e

Minister might not have recorded elaborate reasons, but

the reasons are suf�cient to sustain the impugned order.

14.Elaborating the submissions, Mr. Drupad Patil would

urge, the resolution dated 23

rd

January 2023 to transfer

the Signing Authority was forwarded to the Panchayat

Samiti for seeking guidance. The said resolution was never

acted upon. Thus, neither the interest of the Village

Panchayat can be said to have been jeopardized nor the

authority of petitioner to act as a Sarpanch eroded. Since

the resolution was never acted upon, the Minister was

SAINATH, PA 10/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

justi�ed in observing that, the alleged misconduct was not

so serious as to warrant the removal of the Respondent

Nos. 5 and 6.

15.Mr. Patil would further submit that, the context of

the matter cannot be lost sight of. On 17

th

July 2023, a

motion of ‘no con�dence’ was passed against the petitioner

by a majority of seven Members for various acts of

omission and commission, prejudicial to the Village

Panchayat Administration, attributed to the petitioner. It is

only thereafter on 27

th

July 2023, the petitioner lodged the

dispute with the Divisional Commissioner, by way of a

counter-blast.

16.Mr. Patil would submit that, since the Divisional

Commissioner had found the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

guilty of alleged misconduct in relation to passing of the

said resolution dated 23

rd

January 2023 and the decision

to defer the expenditure under the development scheme for

the speci�ed categories, awaiting the guidance of

Panchayat Samiti, and, as a matter of fact, at no point of

time, the said resolution was acted upon by the Village

Panchayat, the conduct attributed to the Respondent Nos.

SAINATH, PA 11/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

5 and 6 does not fall within the tentacles “misconduct or

disgraceful conduct” within the meaning of Section 39(1) of

the Act, 1959. To buttress this submission, Mr. Patil placed

reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this

Court in the case of Ankush Achutrao Raut & Ors. Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors

1

.

17.Mr. Patil further submitted that, the elected

representatives of the Panchayat cannot be unseated on

the basis of motivated allegations. A clear case of proved

misconduct must be made out. To this end, Mr. Patil

placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad

& Ors.

2

.

18.I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid

rival submissions. To start with the contours of the power

of removal of a Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch or Member of a

Village Panchayat. Section 39 of the Act, 1959, which

envisages the removal of any Member, Sarpanch or Up -

Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, reads as under:-

1 2022 (1) Mh.L.J. 202

2 (2012) 4 SCC 407

SAINATH, PA 12/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

39. Removal from of�ce. - [(1) The Commissioner may, -

(I) remove from of�ce any member or any Sarpanch or Upa-

Sarpanch who has been guilty of misconduct in the

discharge of his duties, or of any disgraceful conduct, or of

neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty, or is

persistently remiss in the discharge thereof. A Sarpanch or

an Upa-Sarpanch so removed may at the discretion of the

Commissioner also be removed from the panchayat’, or

……..

Provided that, no such person shall be removed from of�ce

unless, in case of clause (I), the Chief Executive Of�cer or

in case of clause (ii), the Deputy Chief Executive Of�cer as

directed by the Chief Executive of�cer; under the orders of

the Commissioner, holds an inquiry after giving due notice

to the panchayat and the person concerned; and the

person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity

of being heard and thereafter the Chief Executive Of�cer

or, as the case may be, the Deputy Chief Executive Of�cer

concerned, through the Chief Executive of�cer, submits his

report to the Commissioner. The inquiry of�cer shall

submit his report within a period of one month:

Provided further that, the Commissioner shall, after giving

the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being

heard, take a decision on the report submitted by the Chief

Executive of�cer or, as the case may be, the Deputy Chief

Executive Of�cer, within a period of one month from the

date of receipt thereof.]

[(1A) Where a person is removed from of�ce of the

Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, he shall not be eligible for re-

election as Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch during the

remainder of the term of of�ce of members of the

panchayat.]

[(2) The Commissioner may subject to like condition

disqualify for a period of not exceeding [six years], any

SAINATH, PA 13/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

person who has resigned his of�ce as a member, Sarpanch

or Upa-Sarpanch and has been guilty of the acts and

omissions speci�ed in sub-section (1).

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner

under sub-section (1) or (2) may, within a period of �fteen

days from the date of the receipt of such order, appeal to

the State Government and the Government shall decide

the appeal within a period of one month from the date of

receipt thereof.]

19.The phraseology of aforesaid Section indicates that

the Commissioner is empowered to remove from of�ce a

Member or Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, who has been

found guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties,

or of any disgraceful conduct, or of neglect of or incapacity

to perform his duty, or is persistently remiss in the

discharge thereof. After specifying the grounds on which a

Member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch can be removed from

the of�ce, the �rst and second proviso to sub-Section (1)

envisage a two-stage inquiry. Under the �rst proviso, the

Chief Executive Of�cer or the Deputy Chief Executive

Of�cer, as the case may be, has to hold an inquiry after

giving due notice to the Panchayat and the person

concerned; the latter is entitled to a reasonable

opportunity of hearing. Post such inquiry, the Chief

SAINATH, PA 14/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

Executive Of�cer has to submit a report to the Divisional

Commissioner.

20.Under the second proviso, the Divisional

Commissioner, in turn, is enjoined to again afford a

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person to whom

the notice of removal was given and against whom a report

has been submitted by the Chief Executive Of�cer. Only

after such inquiry, the Divisional Commissioner is

empowered to take a decision on the report submitted by

the Chief Executive Of�cer.

21.Sub Section (1-A) prescribes the disquali�cations

which the order of removal may entail. Sub Section (2)

empowers the Commissioner to disqualify the person who

has resigned from the of�ce as a member, Sarpanch or

Upa-Sarpanch for a period not exceeding six years if such

person has been found guilty of acts and omissions

speci�ed in Sub Section (1). Under sub Section (3) of

Section 39, any person aggrieved by an order passed by

Commissioner under Sub Sections (1) and (2) may prefer

an Appeal to the State Government.

SAINATH, PA 15/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

22.In a sense, Section 39 of the Act, 1959 is a self

contained Code in the matter of removal of a person from

the of�ce of member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of Village

Panchayat. Grounds on which a person can be removed

from those of�ces have been speci�ed. A mechanism of

holding an inquiry, after affording a reasonable

opportunity of hearing, has been prescribed. Decision of

the Divisional Commissioner is amenable to an Appeal

before the State Government.

23.The Act, however, does not de�ne the terms,

“misconduct”, “disgraceful conduct”, or “neglect”, which

are used in Clause (i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 39 of

the Act, 1959. These expressions take color from the

context of the duties which a member, Sarpanch or Up a-

Sarpanch has to perform under the provisions of the Act,

1959. Whether a particular act or omission would amount

to misconduct, disgraceful conduct or neglect would turn

upon the facts of a given case.

24.A pro�table reference, in this context, can be made to

the three bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of ‘State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Ram Singh Ex.

SAINATH, PA 16/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

Constable

3

, wherein the import of the term “misconduct”

was expounded with reference to the de�nition in the

Black’s Law Dictionary and P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law

Lexi-con. The observations in Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 are

material and hence extracted below:

5. Misconduct has been de�ned in Black's Law,

Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999 thus :

.. "A transgression of some established an de�nite rule

of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty,

unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or

wrong behavior, its synonyms are misdemeanor,

misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety,

mismanagement, offence but not negligence or

carelessness."

Misconduct in of�ce has been de�ned as :

.."Any unlawful behavior by a public of�cer in relation

to the duties of his of�ce, willful in character. The term

embraces acts which the of�ce holder had no right to

perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act

in the face of an af�rmative duty to act."

P. Ramanatha Aiyar's the Law Lexicon, Reprint Edition

1987 at p.821 `misconduct' de�nes thus:-

"The term misconduct implies a wrongful intention, and

not a mere error of judgment. Misconduct is not

necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral

turpitude. The word misconduct is a relative term, and

3 JT 1992 (4) SC 253

SAINATH, PA 17/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

has to be construed with reference to the subject

matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having

regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being

construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct

or improper conduct. In usual parlance, misconduct

means a transgression of some established and de�nite

rule of action, where no discretion if left, except what

necessity may demand and carelessness, negligence

and unskillfulness are transgressions of some

established, but inde�nite, rule of action, where some

discretion is necessarily left to the actor. Misconduct is

a violation of de�nite law; carelessness or abuse of

discretion under an inde�nite law. Misconduct is a

forbidden act; carelessness, a forbidden quality of an

act, and is necessarily inde�nite. Misconduct in of�ce

may be de�ned as unlawful behaviour or neglect by a

public of�cer, by which the rights of a party have been

affected."

6. Thus it could be seen that the word `misconduct'

though not capable of precise de�nition, on re�ection

receives its connotation from the context, the

delinquency in its performance and its effect on the

discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve

moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong

behaviour; unlawful behaviour, willful in character;

forbidden act, a transgression of established and

de�nite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere

error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in

performance of the duty; the act complained of bears

forbidden quality or character. Its ambit has to be

construed with reference to the subject matter and the

context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to

the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks

to serve……..”

SAINATH, PA 18/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

(emphasis supplied)

25.In the case of Arun Achutrao Raut (supra), on which

reliance was placed by Mr. Patil, a learned Single Judge of

this Court, after adverting to the aforesaid decision in the

case of Ram Singh (supra), observed that, the de�nition of

“misconduct” sounds and implies a wrongful intention and

it being relative term, it is to be construed with reference to

the subject matter. It literally means wrong conduct or

improper conduct or transgression of some established and

de�nite rule of action. The expression, “misconduct” being

used in Section 39(1)(i) of the Act, 1959 is to be understood

to mean an act which must be willful in character and not

a negligence or carelessness.

26.While appreciating the crucial aspect as to whether

the acts and omissions attributed to the petitioner

constitute “misconduct” within the meaning of Section

39(1) (i) of the Act, 1959, the Court has to be also sensitive

to the fact that an elected representative cannot be

permitted to be removed from the of�ce on tenuous

grounds. The statutory requirements must be strictly

ful�lled. Undoubtedly, if misconduct or disgraceful conduct

is proved, an elected representative must be removed from

SAINATH, PA 19/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

the of�ce lest public interest would be severely jeopardized.

At the same time, it is necessary to bear in mind that the

removal of an elected of�ce bearer not only entails civil

consequences for the said person but the electoral college

such person represents is also deprived of representation

in the local self governing body / legislature by a person of

their choice. It is, therefore, imperative that the grounds of

removal or disquali�cation are clearly established and the

procedure prescribed in the governing statute is

scrupulously followed before an elected of�ce bearer is

removed from his of�ce. The decision making process has

to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice

and the person concerned must get an ef�cacious

opportunity to meet the indictment.

27.A pro�table reference can be made to a three Judge

bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nisar

Ahmad Ibrahim Khan Vs. Deolali Cantonment Board and

Ors

4

., wherein the Supreme Court postulated the law as

under:

“14. There is no common law of elections. The proceedings

calling in question the validity of an election are purely

statutory proceedings. An election contest is not an action

4 1987 (Supp) SCC 562

SAINATH, PA 20/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

at law or a suit in equity, but is purely a statutory

proceeding unknown to the common law and that the

Court possess no common law power. It is trite

proposition that in such proceedings statutory

requirements must strictly be established. It is also well

settled that the success of a candidate who has won at an

election should not be lightly interfered with.”

(emphasis supplied)

28.In the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra), on which

reliance was placed by Mr. Patil, the Supreme Court

highlighted the care and caution that is required to be

observed while removing an elected of�ce bearer from the

of�ce and the jurisprudential foundation for such

circumspection, in the following words :

….“ 34. In a democratic institution, like ours, the

incumbent is entitled to hold the of�ce for the term for

which he has been elected unless his election is set aside

by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is removed

by the procedure established under law. The proceedings

for removal must satisfy the requirement of natural

justice and the decision must show that the authority

has applied its mind to the allegations made and the

explanation furnished by the elected of�ce bearer sought

to be removed.

35. The elected of�cial is accountable to its electorate

because he is being elected by a large number of voters.

His removal has serious repercussions as he is removed

from the post and declared disquali�ed to contest the

elections for a further stipulated period, but it also takes

away the right of the people of his constituency to be

SAINATH, PA 21/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such

a post is statutory and no person can claim any absolute

or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed

without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by

the legislature for his removal (Vide: Jyoti Basu & Ors. v.

Debi Ghosal & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 983; Mohan Lal

Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rai Barelly & Ors., AIR

1993 SC 2042; and Ram Beti etc. etc. v. District

Panchayat Rajadhikari & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1222).

36. In view of the above, the law on the issue stands

crystallized to the effect that an elected member can be

removed in exceptional circumstances giving strict

adherence to the statutory provisions and holding the

enquiry, meeting the requirement of principles of natural

justice and giving an incumbent an opportunity to defend

himself, for the reason that removal of an elected person

casts stigma upon him and takes away his valuable

statutory right. Not only the elected of�ce bearer but his

constituency/electoral college is also deprived of

representation by the person of his choice.

37. A duly elected person is entitled to hold of�ce for the

term for which he has been elected and he can be

removed only on a proved misconduct or any other

procedure established under law like `No Con�dence

Motion' etc. The elected of�cial is accountable to its

electorate as he has been elected by a large number of

voters and it would have serious repercussions when he

is removed from the of�ce and further declared

disquali�ed to contest the election for a further

stipulated period.”….

(emphasis supplied)

SAINATH, PA 22/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

29.In view of the aforesaid legal position, the pivotal

question as to whether the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have

committed misconduct within the meaning of Section 39(1)

of the Act, 1959, in the context of the acts which have

emerged in the inquiry conducted by the Chief Executive

of�cer and the �ndings thereon by the Divisional

Commissioner, is required to be answered.

30.At the outset, the submission of Ms. Kirthika that,

the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-

application of mind, and is sans reasons, cannot be said to

be unfounded. The Minister had made no effort to come in

close quarters with the reasons ascribed by the Divisional

Commissioner. After copious narration of the facts,

contentions of the parties and order passed by the

Divisional Commissioner, the Minister has allowed the

Appeal by a general observation that, he agreed with the

contentions raised by the appellants/Respondent Nos. 5

and 6 herein. The only reasons that can be discerned from

the impugned order are that, the resolution dated 23

rd

January, 2023 was not acted upon and the misconduct

attributed to the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was not serious.

The consideration by the Minister is far from satisfactory.

SAINATH, PA 23/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

Nonetheless, this Court is inclined to consider the merits

of the matter and determine whether a case for remov al

under Section 39(1) of the Act, 1959, was made out.

31.The acts in relation to alleged misconduct of

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are borne out by the record in

the form of the minutes of the meeting of the Village

Panchayat; the sanctity of which is not seriously contested.

The two counts on which the Divisional Commissioner

found Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 guilty of misconduct were

principally based on the conduct of the Respondent Nos. 5

and 6 as re�ected in the minutes of the meeting dated 23

rd

January, 2023 and 29

th

March, 2023.

32.In the meeting dated 23

rd

January, 2023, while the

subject of changing the specimen signature of the Village

Development of�cer was being discussed, the Respondent

No. 6 Sagar Kudale proposed that, the authority of th e

Sarpanch to sign the documents on behalf of the Village

Panchayat be given to Respondent No. 5 - Ramdas Kudale,

Up-Sarpanch. The seven members of the Village Panchayat

passed the said resolution unanimously.

SAINATH, PA 24/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

33.What exacerbates the situation is fact that, the

Village Development Of�cer apprised the Panchayat that in

view of the provisions contained in Section 38 and 57 of

the Act, 1959, such a resolution cannot be passed and, yet,

the Panchayat passed the said resolution. It was further

resolved that, the DSC of the Village Panchayat be newly

obtained in the name of Up-Sarpanch. Respondent No. 5

Ramdas Kudale was the seconder for the said resolution

proposed by the Respondent No. 6 – Sagar Kudale.

34.In view of the provisions contained in Section 38(1) of

the Act, 1959, the executive power, for the purpose of

carrying out the provisions of the said Act and the

resolutions passed by the Panchayat, vests in Sarpanch,

and only in the absence of Sarpanch, the powers and

duties of the Sarpanch, save as may be otherwise

prescribed by rules, be exercised and performed by the Up-

Sarpanch. Under Section 57(3) of the Act, 1959, the

Secretary and Sarpanch are jointly responsible for the

custody of the Village fund, village water supply fund and

the other monies received on behalf of the Panchayat and

shall jointly operate them for the purposes

SAINATH, PA 25/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

enumerated therein, including authorization of payments,

and issue of cheques.

35.The only factor which weighed with the Minister was

that, the said resolution was not acted upon, as guidance

was awaited from the Panchayat Samiti. It would be

contextually relevant to note that, vide communication

dated 21

st

June 2023, the Block Development Of�cer

informed the Sarpanch and the Village Development

Of�cer, Hiware that, in view of the provisions contained in

Section 38, while the Sarpanch is in of�ce, the Up-

Sarpanch cannot discharge the functions of the Sarpanch

and, thus, no action could be taken pursuant to the said

resolution, dated 23

rd

January, 2023.

36.Mr. Patil submitted with tenacity that, since the

resolution was not acted upon, the act of passing the

resolution, by itself, cannot amount to misconduct. I �nd it

dif�cult to accede to this submission unreservedly.

37.Whether the resolution was acted upon or not cannot

be the sole barometer for testing the legality of the conduct.

The intent with which the resolution was passed, assumes

SAINATH, PA 26/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

critical salience. Incontrovertibly, the resolution was

passed not only in teeth of the provisions contained in

Sections 38 and 57 of the Act, 1959, but despite the

caution being administered by the Village Development

Of�cer. By brute majority, an effort was made to divest the

duly elected Sarpanch of the executive power of the Village

Panchayat vested in her by law. Divesting the authority of

the Sarpanch, conferred by law, by resorting to an illegal

action cannot but be a grave misconduct. The resolution

falls foul both on legality as well as wrongful intention to

usurp power and authority of the Sarpanch in an illegal

manner.

38.Even the submission that the resolution was not

acted upon falls through, if considered in the context of the

second count of the alleged misconduct. The material on

record indicates that, in the meeting of the Village

Panchayat held on 29

th

March 2023, when the subject of

incurring the expenditure under the priority areas like,

Women and Child Development and Backward Classes

Development and Welfare of Persons with disability, was

discussed, the Respondent No. 5 – Ramdas Kudale and

Respondent No. 6 Sagar Kudale raised objection that, since

SAINATH, PA 27/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

the guidance of the Panchayat Samiti in relation to the

Resolution to transfer the executive power dated 23

rd

January 2023 was awaited, the decision on the

expenditure of the funds be deferred.

39.The aforesaid conduct of the Respondent Nos. 5 and

6 belies the claim of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that the

resolution dated 23

rd

January 2023 was not acted upon.

The resolution passed in the meeting dated 29

th

March

2023 in relation to the expenditure of the funds,

underscores the extent to which the functioning of th e

Village Panchayat was paralyzed by insisting that, the

executive power of the Village Panchayat vested in the

Sarpanch, by law, be transferred to the Up-Sarpanch.

40.The Minister thus committed a grave error in holding

that, though an illegal resolution was passed, yet, it would

not entail the consequence of removal because the sa id

resolution was not acted upon. The attendant conduct and

wrongful intent of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were

completely ignored by the Minister. The Minister ought to

have been alive to the devious design with which the

resolution was moved and seconded by the Respondent

SAINATH, PA 28/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

Nos. 5 and 6. A clear intent to arrogate the authority of

Sarpanch, while she was still holding the of�ce, was

evident.

41.For the foregoing reasons, the submissions of Mr.

Patil that, the mere passing of the resolution did not

amount to misconduct does not merit acceptance. An effort

was made by Mr. Patil to then urge that, since the other

members of the Village Panchayat who had supported the

resolution were exonerated, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

could not have been held guilty of misconduct. The

submission is required to be recorded to be repelled. The

Divisional Commissioner has rightly held that, the

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were the driving force behind the

said resolution and the resultant destabilization of the

Village Panchayat Administration. They were the proposer

and the seconder. Moreover, the Respondent No. 5 –

Ramdas Kudale, was to be the principal bene�ciary of the

said illegal resolution.

42.The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that,

the impugned order cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the

impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and

SAINATH, PA 29/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

the order of removal passed by the Divisional

Commissioner deserves to be restored.

43.Hence, the following order:-

: : O R D E R : :

i] The Writ Petition stands allowed.

ii] The impugned order passed by the

State Government stands quashed and

set aside.

iii] The order dated 31

st

December, 2024,

passed by the Divisional Commissioner

removing the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in

exercise of the power under Section 39(1)

of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats

Act, 1959, from the post of Up-Sarpanch

and Member, stands restored.

iv] Rule made absolute to the aforesaid

extent.

v] No costs.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

SAINATH, PA 30/31

WP 12667-25.DOC

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the

Respondents seeks stay to the execution and operation of

the impugned order.

In the light of the view this Court has taken in the

judgment oral application for stay does not deserve to be

countenanced. Hence, the oral application stands rejected.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

SAINATH, PA 31/31

ARUN

RAMCHANDRA

SANKPAL

Digitally signed

by ARUN

RAMCHANDRA

SANKPAL

Date:

2026.02.25

20:02:27 +0530