Bombay High Court
Smt. Pooja W/O Dnyaneshwar Madavi vs State Of Maharashtra, Rural ... on 20 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp2214.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2214 OF 2016
Smt. Pooja w/o Dnyaneshwar Madavi,
aged about 40 years,
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nanda,
Tah. Korpana,
District Chandrapur. .... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Rural Development & Water Resources Deptt.
Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
Through its Minister/Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Z.P., Chandrapur.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Korpana,
District Chandrapur.
5. The Secretary,
Gram Panchayat, Nanda,
Tah. Korpana, District Chandrapur.
6. Mohammad Harun Alladin Siddiki,
r/o Nanda,
Tah. Korpana, District Chandrapur. .... RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:03:17 :::
wp2214.16
2
Shri B.S. Dhandale Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Shyam Ahirkar, AGP, for respondents 1 and 2.
Respondents 3 to 5 served.
Shri H.N. Potbhare Advocate for respondent no. 6.
.....
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 20.04.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Affidavit submitted on behalf of respondent no. 6 is
taken on record.
2. Heard.
ig Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent of parties.
3. It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner is
covered under Section 39(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act, 1958. Proviso to Section 39(1)(i) clearly lays
down that an inquiry has to be conducted when the allegation is
about commission of committing of misconduct in the discharge
of duty by a Sarpanch, by the Chief Executive Officer and not by
the Deputy Chief Executive Officer. The requirement of law is
that the inquiry has to be conducted by the Chief Executive
Officer and in that inquiry, hearing is also required to be given to
the affected person by the Chief Executive Officer. This view has
also been taken by this Court in Nimba Yadav Bhoi vs.
wp2214.16
President, Standing Committee, Z.P. & ors. reported in
2002(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 944. On perusal of the inquiry report
filed by the Chief Executive Officer, it is seen that the inquiry was
actually conducted not by the Chief Executive Officer, but by the
Deputy Chief Executive Officer. A second inquiry also appears to
have been conducted. The fresh inquiry report no where
mentions about granting of hearing to the petitioner. Obviously,
the second inquiry conducted in this case is not in accordance
with the mandate of Section 39(1). Therefore, the impugned
order based upon such flawed inquiry cannot be sustained in law
and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
4. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned
orders are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the respondent no. 3 for conducting of fresh
inquiry in the matter and submit the report to the competent
authority for its consideration in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in these terms. No costs.
JUDGE
/TA/
