1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5555 of 2010 (Sau. Dhrupadabai Uttamrao Chauhan v. The State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri A.P. Tathod, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Shri Amol Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 28 th March, 2011 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 26-7-2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in appeal upholding the order of disqualification passed against the petitioner under Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Hon’ble Minister of State, Rural Development, State of Maharashtra, by his order dated 6- 10-2010, has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been preferred challenging all the orders and the resolution dated 13-9-2010 passed by the Village Panchayat, Eklara. 2 3. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice for removal from the office of Sarpanch under the provision of Section 39(1)(i) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act for neglect to perform his duties. The petitioner did not respond to the said show cause notice. The Chief Executive Officer, Washim, by his order at Annexure-B to the petition, has disqualified the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under Section 39(1) of the said Act. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Chief Executive Officer that in spite of the repeated reminders, the petitioner had failed to sign the withdrawal slip intentionally. This finding has been confirmed in appeal by the State Government. 4. Shri Tathod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Nimba Yadav Bhyoi v. President, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and others, reported in 2002(3) Mh.L.J. 466, to urge that the enquiry under Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act has to be conducted by the Chief Executive Officer himself and there cannot be a delegation of the said power to the Block Development Officer. He submits that in the present case, the Block Development Officer had submitted his report, and on the basis of which the said show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer. He, therefore, submits that on the basis of this judgment, the action of the Chief Executive Officer is liable to be set aside. 5. No doubt, the Block Development Officer had submitted his report. However, pursuant thereto, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer. The petitioner did not respond to the said show cause notice. The 3 Chief Executive Officer has conducted the enquiry and recorded the finding that the charge levelled against the petitioner under Section 39(1)(i) of the said Act has been established. The Appellate Authority has concurred with this finding. In view of the fact that the Chief Executive Officer has conducted the enquiry, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Authorities below having recorded the finding of fact, no interference is called for in the matter of disqualification of the petitioner. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl