1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the District Development Officer, respondent no.2 herein, dated 12/15.02.2010 as also the order passed by the Additional Development Commissioner, respondent no.1 herein, dated 20.07.2010, whereby, the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Bandra Gram Panchayat has been confirmed.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Bandra Gram Panchayat, Taluka Gondal, District Rajkot and took charge as such on 20.01.2007. On 04.03.2009 a Notice u/s. 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short, "the Act") was issued by respondent no.2 to the petitioner inter alia alleging that the petitioner had not followed the guidelines prescribed under the S.G.R.Y. Scheme and that he had not removed the encroachments upon the Government lands and that he had paid wages from the funds of the Gram Panchayat to persons who were Members of the Panchayat. The petitioner replied to the said Notice vide reply dated 23.06.2009.
3. However, vide impugned order dated 12/15.02.2010, respondent no.2 directed the removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, in exercise of powers u/s.57(1) of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.1. However, the said appeal came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 20.07.2010. Hence, this petition.
4. Mr.
B.T. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the authorities below have not appreciated the provisions of the Act in its proper perspective and have passed the impugned orders in a completely mechanical manner. He has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed due to political vendetta.
4.1 Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct while discharging his duties nor has abused his powers. He submitted that the petitioner has not misappropriated any funds of the Gram Panchayat and has always acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below is perverse and against the provisions of law and passed under political pressure.
4.2 Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kamlaben Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2001(1) G.L.H. 109, wherein, it has been held that for the purpose of removal elected representatives cannot be treated like Government servants as their services are controlled at the pleasure of the President or Governor under Article 319 of the Constitution. Similar view has been taken in another decision of this Court in the case of Kanakbhai Padhar v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (3) G.L.H. 739, wherein, it has been held that before removing an elected representative, the authority must consider whether there is a genuine ground available for removal and whether such a person is committing persistent defaults in the discharge of his duties as required u/s. 57(1) of the Act.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner and other evidence available on record, the respondent-authority found that materials which could be used under the S.G.R.Y. scheme had not been used and that the projects under the said scheme were not completed within the stipulated period. It was also found that the persons who were employed for work were not paid in cash or coupons, which was the requirement under the scheme. It was also found that the benefits of the scheme were not extended to all the labourers who were entitled to receive the said benefits. Another serious irregularity which was found was that payments were made to Members of the Gram Panchayat towards the labour work.
6. The charges include misappropriation of the funds of the Gram Panchayat and failure in the implementation of the scheme meant for the people of the Village. All the above charges that stood proved against the petitioner are of a very serious nature. Looking to the seriousness of the charges that stood proved against the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the authority below was completely justified in removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch by exercising powers u/s.57(1) of the Act.
7. It appears from the record that the petitioner had not demanded the copy of the Report though a reference regarding the same was made in the Notice. Therefore, it is now not open to the petitioner to take the defence that he was not supplied with the copy of the same.
8. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though good law, will not apply to the facts of the present case since, in this case, the charges that stood proved against the petitioner are serious in nature and therefore, the competent authority has powers under the Act to pass an order directing removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. The authorities below have rightly exercised the powers under the said Act. Hence, the said decisions will not apply on the facts of the present case.
9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the authorities below have not committed any error while passing the impugned orders. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is summarily rejected.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top