### High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Removal of Sarpanch for Financial Irregularities Writ Court may decline to quash an unreasoned order if interference would revive an illegal order. Case Summary: * Petitioner: Mangal Mahadu Korde (Elected Sarpanch) * Respondents: State of Maharashtra, Divisional Commissioner (Pune), Chief Executive Officer (Zilla Parishad, Pune), and others. * Key Law: Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. Background: The Petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch by the Minister (Rural Development) on appeal, reversing a Divisional Commissioner’s decision. The removal followed an inquiry report by the Chief Executive Officer which found that the Petitioner executed over 50 village works without following mandatory tender or bidding processes prescribed under the Maharashtra Grampanchayat Account Code, 2011. Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the Minister’s order was "unreasoned" and violated principles of natural justice. Furthermore, it was argued that technical administrative lapses do not amount to "misconduct" under Section 39(1) of the Act in the absence of proven misappropriation. Court’s Observations: 1. Requirement of Reasons: The Court acknowledged that the impugned order lacked detailed reasoning, noting that reasons are the "soul of the adjudicatory process" and a requirement of natural justice. 2. Definition of Misconduct: Referring to *State of Punjab v. Ram Singh*, the Court noted that misconduct includes unlawful behavior, willful dereliction of duty, and acts which an office holder has no right to perform. 3. Severity of Violations: The Court found the Petitioner's persistent failure to follow tender processes for public expenditure to be a gross violation of statutory duties. Dealing with public funds as personal largesse constitutes misconduct, even if actual misappropriation is not proven. 4. Discretionary Jurisdiction (Article 226): The Court held that while the Minister's order was flawed for lack of reasoning, setting it aside would revive the Divisional Commissioner’s order, which wrongly exonerated the Petitioner despite clear evidence of irregularities. Conclusion: Following the principle that a Writ Court should not interfere with an illegal order if its effect is to revive another illegal or wrong order, the High Court dismissed the petition. The removal of the Sarpanch was upheld despite the procedural infirmity of the appellate order.

The Petitioner, elected as Sarpanch of Wakalwadi Village Panchayat in 2021, was subject to an inquiry following complaints by Respondent No. 5

A report by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) dated March 18, 2024, revealed that over 50 village works were executed without tender processes or bids, and cash transactions violated Accounting Rules

On July 3, 2024, the Divisional Commissioner declined to remove the Petitioner, characterizing the actions as "administrative lapses" rather than misappropriation

Respondent No. 5 appealed to the State Government under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. The Minister allowed the appeal and removed the Petitioner via an order dated May 8, 2025, which the Petitioner challenged on the grounds that it lacked specific reasoning

1. Whether an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority is sustainable if it fails to record explicit reasons for its decision

2. Whether the execution of public works without following mandatory tender processes under the Maharashtra Grampanchayat Account Code, 2011, constitutes "misconduct" or "neglect of duty" under Section 39(1)

3. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, should set aside an unreasoned appellate order if doing so would revive an original order that is itself illegal

Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, permits removal for "misconduct," "disgraceful conduct," or "negligence"

S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India and Siemens Engineering v. Union of India, establishing that recording reasons is a basic postulate of natural justice for quasi-judicial orders

State of Punjab v. Ram Singh and Ankush Achutrao Raut v. State of Maharashtra, defining "misconduct" as a "transgression of some established and definite rule of action"

Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and Al-Can Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd., which holds that a Writ Court should not quash an order if its effect is to revive another illegal/wrong order

The court acknowledged that the Minister’s impugned order was legally infirm for lacking specific reasons, as it merely extracted contentions and stated agreement

The court independently scrutinized the CEO’s report, finding that the Petitioner systematically bypassed the Maharashtra Grampanchayat Account Code, 2011 (Rules 44, 54, 56, and 72), which mandate competitive bidding for expenditures above certain thresholds

The court rejected the Divisional Commissioner's view that these were mere "administrative lapses," noting that dealing with public funds as personal property violates the statutory fiduciary duty of a Sarpanch

The court reasoned that since the Petitioner’s conduct was a clear transgression of definite rules, the Divisional Commissioner's original order (exonerating the Petitioner) was illegal. Consequently, setting aside the Minister's unreasoned order would result in the revival of the Commissioner’s illegal order, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction

The court dismissed the Writ Petition and discharged the Rule, upholding the removal of the Petitioner as the material facts demonstrated a consistent course of misconduct