KANAKBHAI NARSANGBHAI PADHAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Barvala Gram Panchayat and was given charge on 16th January, 2002. The petitioner was removed as Sarpanch vide order dated 20th April, 2002 under Section 57[1] of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short ] by the District Development Officer, Ahmedabad. The said removal order was challenged by the petitioner by way of Appeal before the appellate authority, i.e. Development Commissioner, who, in turn, vide his order dated 6th June, 2002 dismissed the said appeal, confirming the order dated 20th April, 2002 passed by the District Development Officer. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Special Civil Application.

(2.) . The facts of this case reflect that the petitioner, while he was discharging his functions as Sarpanch, received a show cause notice under Section 57[1] of the Act which is at Annexure-B to the petition, wherein certain charges were levelled against the petitioner in the said show cause notice. Charge No.1 relates to non-mentioning of the date of next meeting in the Minutes of the meeting held on 15-3-2002 which was adjourned for want of quorum. Under the Rules, if the meeting is adjourned, in that very meeting, the date of next meeting is required to be announced by giving necessary information in that behalf. Since the petitioner has not done so, the said charge was levelled against him and thereby he was subjected to the charge of dereliction of the duty as Sarpanch. Second ground relates to non calling of budget meeting even though request was made on behalf of 16 members for calling such meeting and accordingly, said charge was levelled on the ground that the petitioner has failed to discharge his duty. Third charge relates to non-passing of the budget by stipulated time, i.e. 31st March, 2002. It is also alleged that the petitioner has deliberately failed to convene the meeting for the purpose of passing such budget and accordingly, the petitioner was found to be negligent in view of his failure in convening such meeting for passing the budget. So far the last charge is concerned, it is alleged that it is mandatory to pass budget by 31st March, 2002 but the petitioner has deliberately not convened the meeting for the same and accordingly, he is negligent in discharging his duties and has failed to discharge his duty which was required to be performed under the provisions of the Act. From the record produced before this Court, it has come on record that the petitioner gave a detailed reply dated 15th April, 2002, which is at page-20 of the compilation, wherein the petitioner has denied each and every allegation levelled against him.

(3.) . So far as the first ground stated in the show cause notice is concerned, the petitioner pointed out that the meeting was convened on 15th March, 2002 for the purpose of passing the budget but said meeting was adjourned for want of requisite quorum. The petitioner pointed out that it is the duty of the Secretary to bring to the notice of the petitioner about giving another date. The petitioner also pointed out that as per the Rules and procedure of holding the meeting, it was the duty of the Secretary to record the Minutes of the meeting and for that, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. As regards the second ground is concerned, it was submitted by the petitioner that since a No Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner, for which, he was required to convene a meeting, he sought a clarification from the Development Commissioner as to which meeting he should call first. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not sure and was confused as to whether he should first call for the meeting in connection with the No Confidence Motion or the meeting for passing the budget. In this regard, a clarification was sought for by the petitioner vide his letter dated 21st March, 2002, which is at page-33 of the compilation. Thereafter, the Taluka Development Officer, by letter dated 26th March, 2002, directed the petitioner to convene immediately a meeting for the purpose of passing the budget by 31st March, 2002. The petitioner was also asked to show cause within two days as to why such meeting was not convened so far. The said letter is at page 36 of the compilation - Annexure-H. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said letter written by the Taluka Development Officer was received by the Sarpanch - petitioner herein on 28th March, 2002 during evening hours. However, it is the case of the petitioner that at that relevant time, since the Talati-cum-Mantri was on leave and that as per the Rules, minimum three days' time was necessary for convening the meeting, he could not convene such meeting, as suggested by the Taluka Development Officer, in his letter dated 26th March, 2002. On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued by Mr.Shaktisinh Gohil, learned advocate, that in the meantime, by way of Circular meeting, the budget was already passed on 30th March, 2002. It is also pointed out that even in his reply to the Taluka Development Officer, which is at page-23 of the compilation, this aspect regarding passing of the budget through circular meeting was reported as mentioned in his reply annexed with the compilation. Regarding the two remaining charges, in connection with non-passing of the budget by 31st March, 2002, it is the case of the petitioner that justification was given by the petitioner to the effect that since he was facing a No Confidence Motion, he sought for clarification from the Development Commissioner in the matter of calling meeting and that he received a letter from Taluka Development Officer on 28th March, 2002 and at that time, the Talati-cum-Mantri was on leave and it was therefore not possible to convene the meeting as the time stipulated for calling such meeting was three days' advance notice prior to such meeting. Over and above, it is submitted by the petitioner that, even otherwise, by Circular Meeting, the budge was already passed by 31st March, 2002. Under these circumstances, it was prayed that show cause notice may be withdrawn.