Bombay High Court Upholds Sarpanch’s Disqualification for Allowing Husband’s Interference and Alleged Bribery Demand, Citing Misconduct Under Section 39(1) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of a Sarpanch from the Gat Gram Panchayat, Raher Adgaon. The petitioner was removed from office under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, for misconduct and disgraceful conduct. The court upheld the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, and the Hon’ble Minister, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra, confirming that the disqualification was valid and justified. The court found that the petitioner’s husband had interfered in Panchayat affairs and was involved in a corruption case, and her failure to prevent such interference amounted to misconduct.

Facts of the Case

1. Election and Role in the Panchayat
   • The petitioner was elected as a member of Gram Panchayat Raher Adgaon in January 2021 from Prabhag No.1, reserved for women belonging to the backward category.
   • Following her election, she was subsequently chosen as the Sarpanch of the Gat Gram Panchayat, Raher Adgaon.
2. Allegations of Corruption Against the Petitioner’s Husband
   • A complaint was lodged by a contractor, Arif Kha Musa Kha Pathan, alleging that the petitioner’s husband, Ashok Borade, had demanded a bribe of ₹1,27,500 in return for clearing pending bills related to road construction under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) for 2017-18.
   • The road construction had been completed earlier, but ₹7,50,000 in payments remained unpaid by the Gram Panchayat.
   • The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) laid a trap to catch the petitioner’s husband taking the bribe, but the operation failed.
3. Filing of an FIR and Arrest of the Petitioner’s Husband
   • Following the complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the petitioner’s husband.
   • Although the trap was unsuccessful, the petitioner’s husband was arrested and remained in jail for one month and eight days before being released on bail.
4. Complaint and Disqualification Order
   • Respondent members of the Gram Panchayat (Nos. 6 to 10) filed a formal application before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, alleging that the petitioner was not performing her duties as Sarpanch and that her husband was interfering in official work.
   • The complaint also alleged that the petitioner permitted her husband to sit in Panchayat meetings, direct officials, and influence Gram Panchayat decisions.
   • The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, passed an order on 01.08.2023, disqualifying the petitioner from her post, citing misconduct under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959.
   • The petitioner filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Minister, Rural Development Department, Maharashtra, which was dismissed on 23.11.2023, reaffirming the disqualification.
5. High Court Challenge
   • The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging her disqualification and arguing that she was unfairly held accountable for her husband’s actions.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, was legally justified?
2. Whether there was a violation of natural justice in the inquiry process conducted by the authorities?
3. Whether the petitioner could be held responsible for the actions of her husband, given that she had obtained a notarized divorce?
4. Whether the failure of the ACB trap was sufficient to dismiss allegations of corruption?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Violation of Natural Justice
   • The inquiry conducted by the authorities did not give a fair hearing to the Gram Panchayat before concluding that she was guilty of misconduct.
   • The report was prepared without calling for an official response from the Gram Panchayat Secretary.
2. Notarized Divorce from Husband
   • The petitioner argued that she had obtained a notarized divorce deed from her husband, and therefore, she could not be held liable for his actions.
   • Since they were legally separated, her husband’s interference in Panchayat matters could not be attributed to her.
3. Failure of ACB Trap
   • The Anti-Corruption Bureau’s trap failed, which meant that her husband was never caught accepting a bribe.
   • Therefore, she argued that the corruption allegation was baseless and should not have been used to disqualify her.
4. Misapplication of Government Resolutions
   • The Government Resolution dated 18.06.2011, which disqualifies individuals caught red-handed in bribery cases, was wrongly applied to her case.
   • Since her husband was never caught accepting money, she argued that this provision did not apply to her.
5. Reliance on Judicial Precedents
   • The petitioner cited Dnyaneshwar Shridhar Matkar v. State of Maharashtra (2023) and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad (2012) to argue that procedural safeguards were violated.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Interference of the Petitioner’s Husband in Official Work
   • The petitioner allowed her husband to take part in official Gram Panchayat matters.
   • Witnesses confirmed that her husband was regularly present at meetings and gave instructions to Gram Panchayat officials.
2. Petitioner’s Consent to Husband’s Activities
   • Even if the petitioner was not directly involved, she failed to prevent her husband from interfering in Panchayat affairs.
   • Allowing an unauthorized person to participate in Panchayat work amounts to misconduct.
3. No Legal Recognition of Notarized Divorce
   • A notarized divorce deed is not a legally recognized form of divorce.
   • The petitioner failed to prove that she was living separately from her husband.
4. ACB Trap Failure Does Not Exonerate the Petitioner
   • The corruption case was still pending, and the husband’s arrest was sufficient proof that misconduct had occurred.
   • Whether the bribe was received or not was irrelevant; the demand itself was enough to establish interference.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

1. The disqualification under Section 39(1) was valid
   • The Divisional Commissioner’s order was based on a detailed inquiry, which found credible evidence of the petitioner’s husband’s interference.
   • The petitioner had knowledge of her husband’s actions and failed to stop them, making her liable for misconduct.
2. Natural Justice Was Not Violated
   • The Chief Executive Officer issued due notices and conducted hearings before preparing the inquiry report.
   • The Gram Panchayat was represented in the process, so there was no procedural unfairness.
3. A Notarized Divorce Is Not a Valid Legal Separation
   • The petitioner’s notarized divorce did not hold legal weight, and there was no evidence that she had actually separated from her husband.
4. The ACB Trap’s Failure Was Not a Decisive Factor
   • The arrest of the petitioner’s husband and his documented interference in Gram Panchayat work was sufficient evidence of misconduct.

Conclusion

1. The writ petition was dismissed.
2. The orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the Hon’ble Minister were upheld.
3. The petitioner remained disqualified from holding the post of Sarpanch or Gram Panchayat member.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Reinforces accountability of elected Panchayat officials.
2. Clarifies that interference by unauthorized individuals in governance can lead to disqualification.
3. Sets a precedent that notarized divorce deeds do not automatically relieve officials from liability for their spouse’s actions.
4. Emphasizes the need for strict adherence to ethical standards in local governance.

This ruling highlights the importance of maintaining transparency in Panchayat administration and holding elected officials accountable for ethical misconduct.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Disqualification of Sarpanch Over Husband’s Alleged Corrupt Practices and Interference in Panchayat Affairs