Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Narendra Purushottam Ingole, was elected as a Member of Gram Panchayat Wadki in June 2015 and subsequently elected as Sarpanch. A complaint was lodged against him with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, leading to a trap where he was caught red-handed accepting illegal gratification. Consequently, an FIR dated 16-2-2016 was registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and he was arrested. The Divisional Commissioner, on 14-3-2016, granted permission to the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad to conduct an enquiry under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer issued a notice to the petitioner, who submitted his explanation. After considering the material, the Chief Executive Officer passed an order removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch on the ground of disgraceful conduct. The petitioner challenged this removal in the writ petition. The court examined whether the registration of FIR and arrest for corruption offences amounts to disgraceful conduct under Section 39(1). The court noted that the term 'disgraceful conduct' is not defined in the Act but includes acts that bring disrepute to the office. The petitioner was caught red-handed in a trap and a chargesheet was filed, which is sufficient to initiate removal proceedings without awaiting conviction. The court held that the enquiry was conducted in compliance with principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was given notice and opportunity to submit his explanation. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the removal order.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - Removal of Sarpanch - Disgraceful Conduct - Section 39(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Registration of FIR and arrest for accepting illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 constitutes disgraceful conduct - The court held that the term 'disgraceful conduct' is not defined but includes acts that bring disrepute to the office; the petitioner was caught red-handed in a trap and chargesheeted, which is sufficient to initiate removal proceedings without awaiting conviction (Paras 2-10). B) Panchayati Raj - Enquiry under Section 39(1) - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 39(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The Divisional Commissioner granted permission for enquiry, and the petitioner was issued notice and given opportunity to submit explanation - The court held that the enquiry was conducted in compliance with principles of natural justice and the removal order was valid (Paras 3-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch on account of disgraceful conduct, based on registration of FIR and arrest under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is valid under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Removal of petitioner from office of Sarpanch upheld.
Law Points
- Disgraceful conduct under Section 39(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959 includes registration of FIR and arrest for corruption offences under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- even without conviction
- removal of Sarpanch is valid if based on proper enquiry and opportunity of hearing.
