Bombay High Court Ruling: Disqualification of Elected Member for Financial Misconduct.
12-August-2025
Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law
The case of Janardan Laxman Pawar v/s Yogesh Chandrabhan Pawar & Others concerns a writ petition filed by a member of the Sonambe Village Panchayat, who was also the Sarpanch. The petitioner was challenging a judgment by the Divisional Commissioner that disqualified him from his post. The disqualification was initiated by four respondents, who alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated village panchayat funds. Specifically, it was alleged that the petitioner received two payments via cheques: one for Rs. 1,50,000 in July 2018 and another for Rs. 20,000 in August 2019. The respondents claimed that these actions constituted a disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act 1959 ("the Act of 1959"), which prohibits a member from having any direct or indirect share or interest in any work or contract with the panchayat.
The District Collector initially dismissed the application, reasoning that the alleged acts occurred during the previous term of the panchayat (2014-2019) and therefore could not be a basis for disqualification in the current term.
The respondents appealed this decision to the Divisional Commissioner, who reversed the District Collector's order. The Divisional Commissioner found that the petitioner had indeed received the funds and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the payments. He concluded that the petitioner's actions, even if from the prior term, warranted disqualification. The petitioner then filed a writ petition to the High Court, challenging the Divisional Commissioner's order.
Arguments Presented:
Petitioner's Arguments:
Misconception of Section 14(1)(g): The petitioner argued that simply receiving money from the panchayat does not automatically fall under Section 14(1)(g). For this section to apply, it must be proven that the money was a payment for a specific work or contract with the panchayat, which was not established.
Lack of Causal Link: The village panchayat's own records reportedly did not specify the purpose of the payments, making it impossible to link the funds to any "work" or "contract" as required by the Act.
Audit Report Discrepancy: The petitioner pointed to a discrepancy in the audit report regarding the Rs. 20,000 payment, which allegedly named a different person as the recipient, not the petitioner.
Misconduct vs. Disqualification: The petitioner contended that even if his actions were considered wrongdoing, they should be treated as "misconduct" under Section 39 of the Act, which requires a separate and specific procedure for removal, not an outright disqualification under Section 14(1)(g).
Respondent's Arguments:
Overwhelming Evidence: The respondents argued that there was clear and irrefutable evidence that the petitioner received the funds, and the petitioner's failure to explain the purpose of these payments created an "inescapable" inference that the money was related to some share or interest in panchayat work or contracts.
Audit Report Confirmed Nexus: The respondents claimed the audit report for the Rs. 20,000 payment, despite any minor discrepancies, still established a link between the payment and a specific construction work.
Prior Term Irrelevant: The fact that the actions occurred in the previous term was irrelevant because the petitioner was a member of the panchayat during that time and the nature of the offense warranted disqualification.
Purposive Construction of the Law: The respondents emphasized that the law, specifically Section 14(1)(g), should be interpreted broadly to prevent corruption and uphold the "purity of administration."
High Court's Reasoning and Final Order:
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Divisional Commissioner's decision. The court's reasoning was based on a comprehensive analysis of the facts and the law:
Fact of Payment Established: The court found "overwhelming" and "uncontroversial" evidence that the petitioner received Rs. 1,70,000. This was supported by bank statements and the village panchayat's cash book entries, which explicitly named the petitioner as the payee. The court rejected the petitioner's claim that he was unaware of the transfer, pointing to the immediate withdrawal of the funds as contrary evidence.
Broad Interpretation of "Interest": The court adopted a broad, "object-oriented" interpretation of the term "interest" in Section 14(1)(g). It cited Supreme Court precedents, such as the case of Gulam Yasin Khan Vs Sahebrao Yeshwantrao Walaskar & Anr., which held that "interest" must be pecuniary or material, not just sentimental, and can be direct or indirect. The court explicitly rejected the petitioner's "constricted view" of the provision, noting that its purpose is to ensure probity and prevent conflicts of interest.
Inference of Illicit Gain: The court found that the petitioner's inability to provide any explanation for receiving a substantial sum of money, coupled with the clear evidence of the transfer, was sufficient to infer that he had a pecuniary "interest" in a panchayat work or contract. The court's own finding on the Rs. 20,000 payment, based on the audit report, provided a direct link to a construction work, further strengthening this inference.
Misconduct vs. Disqualification: The court dismissed the argument that the petitioner should have been proceeded against for "misconduct" under Section 39 instead of "disqualification" under Section 14. It held that the same act could fall under both provisions and that they are not mutually exclusive or "water-tight compartments."
Judgment:
The court concluded that the Divisional Commissioner was correct in reversing the District Collector's "erroneous" view. It held that the material on record was sufficient to establish that the petitioner had incurred a disqualification under Section 14(1)(g) of the Act. Based on this reasoning, the court dismissed the writ petition, discharging the rule and imposing no costs. The judgment effectively means the petitioner's disqualification from the post of member of the Village Panchayat was upheld.