Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sau. Leena Ramesh Dongarwar, was the Sarpanch of Navegaon Bandh Gram Panchayat. She was removed from office by an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur Division, under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, on grounds of misconduct in the discharge of her duties. The removal was based on a complaint by respondent Nos.6 and 7, alleging that a construction contract for a weekly market under the Maharashtra Agricultural Competitiveness Project, valued at Rs.25,00,000, was awarded to the brother of the Up-Sarpanch without a proper tender process. The Divisional Commissioner directed the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Gondia, to conduct an enquiry. A preliminary enquiry was carried out by the Block Development Officer, and thereafter the Chief Executive Officer held a formal enquiry. The petitioner challenged the removal order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The court examined the enquiry proceedings and found that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend herself. Specifically, the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who deposed against her, and her written defence was not properly considered. The court held that the principles of natural justice were violated, and the enquiry report was not based on proper evidence. Consequently, the impugned order of removal was quashed and set aside. The court also noted that the tender process, though alleged to be flawed, was not shown to be vitiated by any mala fides or lack of publicity. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was reinstated as Sarpanch.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Removal of Sarpanch - Misconduct - Section 39(1) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act - Enquiry Procedure - The petitioner was removed as Sarpanch on grounds of misconduct in allotment of a contract without proper tender process. The court held that the enquiry was vitiated by procedural irregularities, including failure to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses and to consider her defence. The order of removal was quashed as it was not based on a fair and proper enquiry. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Cross-Examination - The court emphasized that in disciplinary proceedings, the affected party must be given a fair opportunity to defend, including the right to cross-examine witnesses. The enquiry report and the impugned order did not reflect that such opportunity was granted. (Paras 5-8) C) Contract Law - Tender Process - Public Works - The allegation of favouritism in awarding a contract to the brother of the Up-Sarpanch was not substantiated by proper evidence. The court noted that the tender process was not shown to be vitiated by any mala fides or lack of publicity. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act was valid and based on proper enquiry and compliance with principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order of removal dated 21.9.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is reinstated as Sarpanch.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- procedural fairness
- misconduct
- removal of Sarpanch
- tender process
- enquiry report
- opportunity of hearing
- reasoned order
