Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10991/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10991 of 2010
=========================================================
VAKATAR
BHAGVANJIBHAI DEVABHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BHARAT T RAO for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 15/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order passed by the District Development Officer,
respondent no.2 herein, dated 12/15.02.2010 as also the order passed
by the Additional Development Commissioner, respondent no.1 herein,
dated 20.07.2010, whereby, the order of removal of the petitioner
from the post of Sarpanch of Bandra Gram Panchayat has been
confirmed.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of
Bandra Gram Panchayat, Taluka Gondal, District Rajkot and took charge
as such on 20.01.2007. On 04.03.2009 a Notice u/s. 57(1) of the
Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”)
was issued by respondent no.2 to the petitioner inter alia alleging
that the petitioner had not followed the guidelines prescribed under
the S.G.R.Y. Scheme and that he had not removed the encroachments
upon the Government lands and that he had paid wages from the funds
of the Gram Panchayat to persons who were Members of the Panchayat.
The petitioner replied to the said Notice vide reply dated
23.06.2009.
3. However,
vide impugned order dated 12/15.02.2010, respondent no.2 directed the
removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of the Gram
Panchayat, in exercise of powers u/s.57(1) of the said Act. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before respondent no.1. However, the said appeal came to be rejected
vide impugned order dated 20.07.2010. Hence, this petition.
4. Mr.
B.T. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the
authorities below have not appreciated the provisions of the Act in
its proper perspective and have passed the impugned orders in a
completely mechanical manner. He has submitted that the impugned
orders have been passed due to political vendetta.
4.1 Learned
counsel further contended that the petitioner has not committed any
misconduct while discharging his duties nor has abused his powers. He
submitted that the petitioner has not misappropriated any funds of
the Gram Panchayat and has always acted in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the
authorities below is perverse and against the provisions of law and
passed under political pressure.
4.2 Learned
counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of
Kamlaben Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2001(1)
G.L.H. 109, wherein, it has been held that for the purpose of
removal elected representatives cannot be treated like Government
servants as their services are controlled at the pleasure of the
President or Governor under Article 319 of the Constitution. Similar
view has been taken in another decision of this Court in the case of
Kanakbhai Padhar v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (3) G.L.H. 739,
wherein, it has been held that before removing an elected
representative, the authority must consider whether there is a
genuine ground available for removal and whether such a person is
committing persistent defaults in the discharge of his duties as
required u/s. 57(1) of the Act.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on
record. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner and other
evidence available on record, the respondent-authority found that
materials which could be used under the S.G.R.Y. scheme had not been
used and that the projects under the said scheme were not completed
within the stipulated period. It was also found that the persons who
were employed for work were not paid in cash or coupons, which was
the requirement under the scheme. It was also found that the benefits
of the scheme were not extended to all the labourers who were
entitled to receive the said benefits. Another serious irregularity
which was found was that payments were made to Members of the Gram
Panchayat towards the labour work.
6. The
charges include misappropriation of the funds of the Gram Panchayat
and failure in the implementation of the scheme meant for the people
of the Village. All the above charges that stood proved against the
petitioner are of a very serious nature. Looking to the seriousness
of the charges that stood proved against the petitioner, I am of the
opinion that the authority below was completely justified in removing
the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch by exercising powers
u/s.57(1) of the Act.
7. It
appears from the record that the petitioner had not demanded the copy
of the Report though a reference regarding the same was made in the
Notice. Therefore, it is now not open to the petitioner to take the
defence that he was not supplied with the copy of the same.
8. The
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
though good law, will not apply to the facts of the present case
since, in this case, the charges that stood proved against the
petitioner are serious in nature and therefore, the competent
authority has powers under the Act to pass an order directing removal
of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. The authorities below
have rightly exercised the powers under the said Act. Hence, the said
decisions will not apply on the facts of the present case.
9. In
view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the authorities
below have not committed any error while passing the impugned orders.
I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by
the authorities below and hence, find no reasons to interfere with
the same.
10. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is summarily rejected.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top