Bombay High Court
Shri. Manoj Moreshwar Dhurve vs The Hon\\\\\\\'Ble State ... on 25 October, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
owp.6960.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
...
WRIT PETITION NO.6960/2015
Shri Manoj Moreshwar Dhurve
Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat
R/o Kapsi (Buj) Tah. Kamptee
Dist. Nagpur. ...PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Hon'ble State Minister
Rural Development
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Deputy Commissioner
(Rehabilitation)Nagpur.
3) The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
4) Shri Khemraj Santosh Hatwar
Member of Gram Panchayat, Kapasi (Buj)
Tah. Kamptee Dist. Nagpur.
5) Shri Shamrao Sheshrao Adole
R/o Gram panchayat Kapasi (Buj)
Tah.Kamptee Dist. Nagpur.
6) The Gram Panchayat, Kapasi
Tah.Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur
Through its Secretary.
7) The Block Development Officer
Panchayat Samiti, Kamptee
Tahsild Kamptee, Dist.Nagpur. ..RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. V.G.Dhage, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.S. Doiphode, A.G. P. for respondent nos.1 & 2
Mr. Manoj Sable, Advocate for respondent nos.4 & 5
............................................................................................................................
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:46:13 :::
owp.6960.15
2
CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED : 25th October, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned
counsel for the parties have been heard at length, by issuing Rule and making
the same returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of removal dated
27.7.2015 passed by the respondent no.2 in proceedings under Section 39(1)
of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Appeal filed by the
petitioner under section 39(3) of the said Act has been dismissed by the State
Government.
3. Shri V.G. Dhage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the Chief Executive Officer submitted his enquiry report as directed, in
proceedings u/s 39(1) of the said Act. Six charges were held to be proved
against the petitioner. After receiving the enquiry report, the petitioner
submitted his reply dated 23.6.2015.However without considering the said
reply and by accepting the enquiry report, the petitioner came to be removed.
Though a specific ground in that regard was raised by the petitioner in the
memorandum of Appeal and subsequently in the written note of arguments,
the Appellate Authority did not advert to the same and dismissed the Appeal.
He, therefore, submits that this course indicates non-application of mind to
relevant aspects of the matter.
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:46:13 :::
owp.6960.15
3
4. Shri M.A.Sable, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5
as well as Shri S.S. Doiphode, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned order. According to them as
six charges were duly proved against the petitioner, it was clear that a case
for his removal had been made out. It was submitted that both the authorities
after due consideration of the enquiry report, passed an order of removal
against the petitioner.
5.
Having heard the respective counsel for the parties and having
perused the documents on record, it is clear that the reply dated 23.6.2015
submitted by the petitioner challenging the enquiry report has not been taken
into consideration. The Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned
order, has merely referred to the twelve charges on which the enquiry was
held and has thereafter straightway passed the impugned order. The said
order does not reflect consideration of the stand of the petitioner that was
placed on record. The same error has been committed by the Appellate
Authority by not adverting to the challenges raised by the petitioner. On this
short ground, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the
following order is passed:-
ORDER
(i) The order dated 27.7.2015 passed by thwe respondent no.2 and the
subsequent order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the respondent no.1 are
owp.6960.15
quashed and set aside.
(ii) The proceedings are remanded for fresh consideration before the
respondent no.2 who shall take into consideration the entire material on
record and pass fresh orders. For enabling the said exercise to be undertaken,
the parties shall appear before the respondent no.2 on 23
November, 2016.
rd
The respondent no.2 shall decide the proceedings withina peirod of two
months from the said date.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
sahare
