HANSABEN GOVINDBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner who was Sarpanch of Bhatia Gram Panchayat, was served with the Show Cause notice dated 08.08.2005 to the petitioner for removal under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') inter alia on the ground that the kits are given to the relatives who were not below poverty line (hereinafter referred to as 'B.P.L.'). The second ground was that no action was taken by the Sarpanch for recruitment of wireman and the action is not taken for removal of her husband as wireman. The third ground was that the work undertaken by the Gram Panchayat was of the lower quality and the fourth ground was that though Babul trees were cut by the people, the same was be shown as undertaken by the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, there is misconduct and misappropriation. The petitioner submitted reply and contended inter alia that the persons whose names are mentioned for distribution of the agricultural kits, are not the relatives of the petitioner and the husband of the petitioner who was serving as temporary wireman and was recruited prior to the election. It was also contended that the work of construction of Otta is in accordance with S.C.R. and for the fourth ground of the Show Cause notice, it was submitted that the Babul trees are cut by the Gram Panchayat by engaging labourers and, therefore, the work is in accordance with the rules.

(2.) It appears that the District Development Officer after hearing both the sides, found that the petitioner has committed misuse of the position for taking action for recruitment of wireman and not releaving her husband as the wireman. It was also found by the District Development Officer that the agricultural kits are distributed to the persons, who are mentioned in the list of B.P.L. and as there is complaint that the persons are relatives of the Sarpanch, which shows the malafide intention of the Panchayat. It is found by the District Development Officer that the wood of the Babul trees which were cut is not credited in the accounts of the Panchayat and, therefore, there is no satisfactory explanation of the work which was undertaken by the Gram Panchayat and the same is without preparing the budget. Ultimately, the order was passed by the District Development Officer to remove the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch.

(3.) The petitioner carried the matter before the Additional Development Commissioner who also found that the persons who had been distributed agricultural kits, having the name in the list of B.P.L. are favoured since they were the relatives of the Sarpanch and other members of the Gram Panchayat. The husband of the petitioner who was working as wireman was not holding the license and it was required for the Gram Panchayat to take the process of recruitment by removing him, but no action is taken by the petitioner in capacity of the Sarpanch. It is also found by the Additional Development Commissioner that the wood which was cut of the Babul trees is not credited in the accounts of the Gram Panchayat and such details are also not produced before the District Development Officer and even for the work which was undertaken, there was no estimate prepared. Ultimately the Additional Development Commissioner found that there is misuse of power and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. It is under these circumstances the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the petition.