Resolution proposing illegal divestment of Sarpanch's executive powers constitutes misconduct warranting removal under Village Panchayats Act.

The Petitioner, the Sarpanch of Hiware Village Panchayat, sought the removal of Respondent No. 5 (Up-Sarpanch) and Respondent No. 6 (Member) under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

The allegations included passing an illegal resolution on 23rd January 2023 to transfer the Sarpanch’s signing authority to the Up-Sarpanch despite legal warnings from the Village Development Officer.

The allegations further included subsequently deferring welfare fund expenditures until "guidance" on said resolution was received.

The Divisional Commissioner ordered their removal on 31st December 2024.

On appeal, the Minister of Rural Development set aside the removal on 19th August 2025, reasoning that the resolution was never implemented and the misconduct was not "serious enough".

The Petitioner challenged the Minister's order via this Writ Petition.

1. Whether the act of moving and passing a resolution to divest a Sarpanch of statutory executive powers, despite knowing it to be illegal, constitutes "misconduct" under Section 39(1) of the Act, even if the resolution was not implemented.

2. Whether the Minister’s appellate order was sustainable given it lacked detailed reasoning and failed to address specific findings of the Divisional Commissioner.

The Court applied Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which empowers the Commissioner to remove an official for "misconduct in the discharge of duties" or "disgraceful conduct".

It relied on State of Punjab v. Ram Singh to define "misconduct" as a transgression of an established rule, a forbidden act, or unlawful behavior performed with willful intent.

Furthermore, it applied principles from Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, emphasizing that while elected representatives should not be lightly unseated, removal is mandatory upon "proved misconduct" where statutory requirements are strictly established.

The Court also noted Sections 38 and 57 of the Act, which vest executive power and joint financial responsibility exclusively in the Sarpanch.

The Court found the Minister's reasoning—that the lack of implementation mitigated the misconduct—fundamentally flawed.

The Court reasoned that "misconduct" must be construed relative to the subject matter and intent; here, the Respondents demonstrated a "wrongful intention to usurp power" by passing the 23rd January 2023 resolution despite explicit warnings from the Village Development Officer that it violated Sections 38 and 57.

Furthermore, the Respondents' subsequent conduct in the 29th March 2023 meeting—where they used the pending "guidance" on the illegal resolution as a pretext to stall welfare funds—proved that the resolution was acted upon by paralyzing Panchayat administration.

The Court determined that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were the "driving force" (proposer and seconder) of this devious design, distinguishing them from other members who were merely supporters.

It held that the Respondents' actions constituted grave misconduct and a willful attempt to destabilize the administration.

The High Court restored the Divisional Commissioner’s order dated 31st December 2024, confirming the removal of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from their posts as Up-Sarpanch and Member.

An oral application for a stay on the judgment was rejected.