Whenever some adverse action is to be taken, particularly of the kind of non-sitting a publicly elected person, principles of natural justice have to be followed and the charges have to be strictly established: Bombay High Court

 on 30 11 2021 on 30 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.400 OF 2021Manik s o Laxmanrao Zate Age : 51 years Occu. Agri. R o Ukhali Tq. AundhaPETITIONERDistrict Hingoli District Hingoli on 30 11 2021 on 30 11 2WP400 2021.odt11.The Village Panchayat Ukhali through its Gramsevak at R o Ukhali Tq. AundhaDistrict Hingoli RESPONDENTS…..Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan Advocate for the petitionerMr. Y.G. Gujrathi A.G.P. for the respondent StateMr. S.S. Tope Advocate for respondent No.2Mr. A.N. Nagargoje Advocate for respondent Nos.3 5 and 6Mr. Vaibhav Pawar Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 7 to 10…..CORAM :MANGESH S. PATIL J.DATE OF JUDGMENT RESERVED :25.11.2021DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :30.11.2021JUDGMENT :Heard.2.Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learnedA.G.P. waives service on behalf of respondent No.1 learned Advocate Mr.S.S. Tope waives service for respondent No.2 learned Advocate Mr. A.N.Nagargoje waives service for respondent Nos.3 5 and 6 and learnedAdvocate Mr. Vaibhav Pawar waives service for respondent Nos.4 and 7 to10. At the joint request of learned Advocates for the parties the matter isheard finally at the stage of admission.3.The petitioner is challenging the order passed by respondentNo.1 Collector dated 31.12.2020 holding him to have incurred adisqualification under Section 36 read with Section 7 of the MaharashtraVillage Panchayat Act 1958from on 30 11 2021 on 30 11 3WP400 2021.odtholding the post of Sarpanch of village Ukhali Taluka AundhaDistrict Hingoli for not holding the requisite number of monthly meetingsand gram sabhas. The decision was rendered on a complaint filed byrespondent No.2.4.Mr. S.K. Chavan learned Advocate for the petitioner wouldstrenuously submit that the decision under challenge has been rendered inblatant disregard to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner wasserved with a vague notice dated 26.05.2020without containingspecific allegations as to what were the lapses on his part so as toconstitute the disqualification. In the absence of such specific chargeshaving been ever communicated to him the decision was rendered. Byreferring to the rojnama of the proceeding before respondent No.1Collector he would point out that the last date before pronouncement ofthe order under challenge was 03.08.2020. It only marks presence of theparties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.2 and the other respondentsthrough their Advocates. It does not mention about any arguments havingbeen heard by the learned Collector. He would further point out that itreads that a report from Tahsildar Aundha was called and the matter wasstraightway reserved for final decision. Subsequently the impugnedjudgment and order has been pronounced on 31.12.2020. He wouldfurther point out from the observations in the impugned order that areport from the concerned Deputy Chief Executive OfficerZilla Parishad Hingoli was also perused. It was dated 31.08.2020 and no on 30 11 2021 on 30 11 4WP400 2021.odtopportunity was ever extended to the petitioner to know the contents ofthe report which were subsequently relied upon by respondent No.1Collector while passing the impugned decision. If at all he was to relyupon such a report a copy of it ought to have been served to thepetitioner. That having not happened the impugned order suffers fromgross illegality. In support of his submission the learned Advocate wouldplace reliance upon the following decisions:(i)Pratibha Sanjay Hulle Vs. Additional Collector & Ors. 2010Bom.C.R.700(ii)Sunil Daulat Patil V. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2014(1) Bom.C.R.1(iii)Laxmibai Yadavrao Panchal Vs. The Additional Collector& Ors. Writ Petition No.86615 decided on 05.05.2016(iv)Saw. Padminbai Narsing Panchal Vs. The AdditionalCollector & Ors. Writ Petition No.29717 decided on 05.12.2017 5.The learned A.G.P. and Mr. S.S. Tope learned Advocate forrespondent No.2 by referring to their respective affidavits in reply submitthat though the notice served to the petitioner to appear and contest theproceeding before respondent No.1 Collector did not contain theparticulars he was aware about the contents of the complaint filed byrespondent No.2and had even filed his written statementMh.L.J.900 learnedA.G.P. and Mr. Tope learned Advocate would submit that in similar set offacts this court had concluded that the petitioner therein had knowledgeabout the specific allegations against him. He had filed a reply and itcould not be said that an opportunity of being heard was not extended tohim. They would also place reliance on the decision of coordinate benchof this court in the case of Salimbi Mubarak Tamboli Vs. The State ofMaharashtra & Ors. Writ Petition No.109518 decided on12.03.2019. on 30 11 2021 on 30 11 6WP400 2021.odt8.The learned A.G.P. and learned Advocate Mr. Tope would thenrefer to the report of Tahsildar dated 27.11.2020and submit thatthe report was eloquent enough to demonstrate the number of lapses forwhich the petitioner was guilty in not holding the meetings and even therewas an attempt in manipulation of the gram panchayat record. Theywould further submit that even the gramsevak has indulged in theillegality and respondent No.1 Collector specifically directed a disciplinaryproceeding to be initiated against him by his communication dated04.08.2020that aconsequence of not holding necessary meetings pursuant to the provisionsof Section 7 of the Act and Rule No.4 of the Rules framed thereunder isautomatic.11.The question that needs to be addressed in the present on 30 11 2021 on 30 11 7WP400 2021.odtproceeding is as to if there is a failure on the part of respondent No.1Collector in conducting enquiry by adhering to the principles of naturaljustice and as to if based on the material before him his conclusion as tothe proof of charge are sustainable.12.There cannot be dispute about the fact that the petitioner wasserved with a noticewhich simply called upon him to appearbefore respondent No.1 Collector and to furnish his written and oralsubmissions. It did not contain the particulars for which he was calledupon to tender his explanation. In similar set of facts and circumstances in the matters of Pratibha Sunil Laxmibai and Padminbai thecoordinate benches of this Court had remanded the matters back to theconcerned Collector for taking a decision afresh by extending anopportunity of being heard to the concerned petitioners by communicatingspecific charges to them.13.At the first blush the submission on behalf of the petitioner referring to these decisions seems to be attractive. However it needs to beborne in mind that though the noticewas vague and did notcontain the particulars the petitioner had subsequently appeared beforerespondent No.1 Collector and has filed his written statementtothe complaint of respondent No.2dated 31.08.2020 and based on such on 30 11 2021 on 30 11 9WP400 2021.odtreport it was concluded by the Collector that there was sufficient materialto demonstrate that the petitioner had failed to hold mandatory meetings.If such is the state of affairs when the last date of hearing was 03.08.2020and the Collector had received the report of the Deputy Chief ExecutiveOfficer on 31.08.2020 and subsequently passed the impugned order dated31.12.2020 there is absolutely no material to demonstrate that the reportof the Deputy Chief Executive Officer inspite of having sufficient time athand before pronouncing the impugned decision was ever communicatedto the petitioner. If the contents of the report were to be relied upon bythe learned Collector before taking the decision the principles of naturaljustice ought to have been followed by giving its copy to the petitioner andenabling him to meet the contents thereof. This is not an empty formalitybut would have enabled him to demonstrate that the contents were notfactually correct.15.Pertinently the impugned order reads that the concernedgramsevak in the proceeding book dated 18.08.2018 having made anendorsement that no meetings were ever held after 18.08.2018. TheCollector by his communication dated 04.08.2020addressed tothe Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad Hingoli specificallymentioned that after conclusion of the enquiry by the Collector theconcerned gramsevak had made a statement denying the contents of hisearlier report. In view of his such change in the stance it was concludedthat he was misleading the Government and a disciplinary proceeding be on 30 11 2021 on 30 11 10WP400 2021.odtinitiated against him. This circumstance clearly indicates that there is aserious dispute as to the genuineness of the endorsement appearing in theproceeding book of the village panchayat dated 18.08.2020 which readsto the effect that no meeting was ever held after that date. If this is thestate of affairs factually even it is doubtful as to if this entry could havebeen relied upon by the learned Collector while holding the charge havingbeen proved.16.In view of such peculiar state of affairs in my considered view even this matter requires the course adopted by this court in the matters ofPratibha Sunil Laxmibai and Padminbai to be followed.17.The Writ Petition is allowed partly. The impugned order isquashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1Collector for taking a decision afresh by conducting a fresh hearing in thelight of the observations made hereinabove.18.The parties shall appear before respondent No.1 Collector on15.12.2021 and there shall be no need for him to issue any notice to them.He shall thereafter conduct appropriate hearing and decide the matter asearly as possible and in any case within six weeks thereafter. 19.The Rule is mad absolute in above terms. [MANGESH S. PATIL]JUDGEnpj WP400 2021.odt 

Summary: If the contents of the report of Tehsildar were to be relied upon by the learned Collector before taking the decision, the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed by giving its copy to the petitioner and enabling him to meet the contents thereof. This is not an empty formality but would have enabled him to demonstrate that the contents were not factually correct. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court before Hon’ble Justice MANGESH S. PATIL in the matter of Manik s/o Laxmanrao Zate vs The District Collector, Hingoli &amp; ors [WRIT PETITION NO.400 OF 2021 ] on 30.11.2021 
The facts of the case were that the petitioner had to incur disqualification on the alledged ground he had committed lapses in holding the mandatory meetings and gram sabhas. It was the contention of the petitioner that the district collector had not provided him an opportunity of hearing. Thus the instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that there is no contention to the fact that the notice was served on the petitioners which simply called upon him to appear before Collector and to furnish his written and oral submissions. It did not contain the particulars for which he was called upon to tender his explanation.

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court referred to the case of Padminbai Narsing Panchal Vs. The Additional Collector &amp; Ors.; Writ Petition No.2971 of 2017 in which under similar circumstances the matter was remanded back to the o the concerned Collector for taking a decision afresh by extending an opportunity of being heard to the concerned petitioners by communicating specific charges to them.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court partly allowed the instant writ petition and set aside the impugned order with a direction to respondent No.1 Collector for taking a decision afresh by conducting a fresh hearing in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the case were that the petitioner had to incur disqualification on the alledged ground he had committed lapses in holding the mandatory meetings and gram sabhas. It was the contention of the petitioner that the district collector had not provided him an opportunity of hearing. Thus the instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner. 
The Hon’ble High Court observed that there is no contention to the fact that the notice was served on the petitioners which simply called upon him to appear before Collector and to furnish his written and oral submissions. It did not contain the particulars for which he was called upon to tender his explanation.

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court referred to the case of Padminbai Narsing Panchal Vs. The Additional Collector &amp; Ors.; Writ Petition No.2971 of 2017 in which under similar circumstances the matter was remanded back to the o the concerned Collector for taking a decision afresh by extending an opportunity of being heard to the concerned petitioners by communicating specific charges to them.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court partly allowed the instant writ petition and set aside the impugned order with a direction to respondent No.1 Collector for taking a decision afresh by conducting a fresh hearing in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble High Court observed that there is no contention to the fact that the notice was served on the petitioners which simply called upon him to appear before Collector and to furnish his written and oral submissions. It did not contain the particulars for which he was called upon to tender his explanation. 
Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court referred to the case of Padminbai Narsing Panchal Vs. The Additional Collector &amp; Ors.; Writ Petition No.2971 of 2017 in which under similar circumstances the matter was remanded back to the o the concerned Collector for taking a decision afresh by extending an opportunity of being heard to the concerned petitioners by communicating specific charges to them.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court partly allowed the instant writ petition and set aside the impugned order with a direction to respondent No.1 Collector for taking a decision afresh by conducting a fresh hearing in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court referred to the case of Padminbai Narsing Panchal Vs. The Additional Collector &amp; Ors.; Writ Petition No.2971 of 2017 in which under similar circumstances the matter was remanded back to the o the concerned Collector for taking a decision afresh by extending an opportunity of being heard to the concerned petitioners by communicating specific charges to them. 
Finally, the Hon’ble High Court partly allowed the instant writ petition and set aside the impugned order with a direction to respondent No.1 Collector for taking a decision afresh by conducting a fresh hearing in the light of the observations made hereinabove.