SHIVANGINIBEN VISHALKUMAR PATEL Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the reliefs :-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to Socially and Economically Backward Class, who contested the election of Gram Panchayat, Gadariya in December 2016 and was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gadariya. The first meeting of Gram Panchayat was held on 24/10/2017 and from that date, the petitioner took the charge as Sarpanch. The petitioner contested the said post on the seat of Socially and Economically Backward Class - woman category. The Panchayat comprises of 10 members and one Sarpanch. It is the say of the petitioner that the Talati-cum-Mantri, at the relevant point of time, was one Ms. Margiben Shah and she was posted from 2017 at Gadariya Gram Panchayat and was transferred in June 2019. The said Talati- cum-Mantri never cooperated with any of the Panchayat matters and had become arrogant and unbecoming of her office. According to the petitioner, on account of such conduct of Talati-cum-Mantri, various complaints were made by Sarpanch and other members of Gram Panchayat about irregularities committed by the said Talati- cum-Mantri not only about her working but also about her behaviour. One application was also submitted to the District President on 27/9/2018 indicating that the said Talati-cum-Mantri is behaving in a very graceful manner and is refusing to cooperate in any of the works of the Gram Panchayat along with the other grievances which are mentioned. However, according to the petitioner, no steps were taken. By narrating this, the petitioner has then submitted that the show cause notice came to be issued in exercise of powers under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act calling upon the petitioner as to why she should not be removed from the post of Sarpanch on account of irregularities and negligence in discharge of her duties and also for abusing her office. It was also alleged about financial irregularities and thereby called upon the petitioner to remain present before the respondent on 14/11/2019 to submit her representation. The show cause notice contains 13 articles of charges levelled against the petitioner, but then relying upon the report of Accounts Officer, District Panchayat, Valsad dtd. 20/8/2018, present show cause notice was issued. According to the petitioner, the said notice had been replied denying all the charges levelled against her and then, the authority, in exercise of power under Sec. 57(1) of the Act, issued an order on 6/1/2020 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gadariya Gram Panchayat. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner approached the appellate authority under Sec. 57(3) of the Act by preferring Appeal No. 7 of 2020 along with application for interim relief. Since no hearing had taken place, the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was constrained to preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12526 of 2020 and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dtd. 11/2/2021 disposed of the same since the Additional Development Commissioner, Gujarat State was pleased to pass an order on 8/2/2021 during the pendency of the petition.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that in view of the fact that the authority has come to the conclusion that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner so far as issues Nos. 1 to 7 are concerned as indicated in the original notice and further, in view of the fact that so far as issues/allegations Nos.8 to 10 are concerned, in view of Sec. 253 of the Act there would be a collective responsibility of the members of the Panchayat, and there is hardly any reason to call upon the petitioner to submit anything. Additionally, it has been pointed out that so far as issue No.11 is concerned, it has been clarified that in view of inquiry appearing to be defective, so unless and until fresh inquiry is undertaken, the petitioner even cannot be called upon to explain by virtue of impugned notice.