Lilaben @ Liliben Dungibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(s)

Sonia Gokani, J

Attention is drawn of this Court on certain typographical corrections carried out in the judgment copy signed are not forming part of the soft copy uploaded in the system. Let the same be carried out and fresh copy which are though minor in nature, fresh copy shall be required to be uploaded in the same. Let the same be carried out promptly. Fresh writ if need be issued.

Office note stands disposed of accordingly.

1 Petitioner, by way of this petition, seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order passed by respondent No.2 Additional Development Officer on 21.10.2016 in Appeal No.71 of 2016, who had rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner under sub­section (3) of the Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ("the Act" hereinafter).

2 Respondent No.2 confirmed the order of respondent No.3, District Development Officer passed on 08.08.2016 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Padva Gran Panchayat.

3 Brief facts leading to this petition are as follows:­

3.1 The petitioner had been elected on the reserved post for the scheduled caste and being a female candidate, she has grievance that without giving her any training by the authority, she is sought to be removed only on the ground of procedural lapses. It is her say that this Court, in catena of decisions, has held that female candidates and candidates particularly belonging to the scheduled caste community should be given training and on account of procedural lapses, Sarpanch cannot be removed. One Bhimjibhai Ratnabhai Gohil was elected as Sarpanch of Padva Gram Panchayat on 12.12.2012, no confidence motion was moved against him and he needed to vacate his office on 15.01.2015 as Sarpanch. Thereafter, for three months Upa­Sarpanch was given the charge of Sarpanch of Padva Gram Panchayat. In the meantime, bye­election was held on 15.05.2015, wherein the said post was reserved for scheduled caste community. The petitioner since hails from scheduled caste community, she contested the elections and was declared elected as Sarpanch, Padva Gram Panchayat. Her term as Sarpanch was for the period of 05 years, which otherwise was scheduled to get over in the month of January,2017.

3.2 Respondent No.3, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under sub­section (1) of section 57, issued the show cause notice on 29.04.2016 calling upon the petitioner as to why the petitioner should not be removed from the post of Sarpanch because of certain charges levelled against her. According to the petitioner, these are the charges levelled against her in connection with procedural lapses. It is emphatically urged that none of the ingredients of section 57 of the Act stands satisfied, as she has not committed any misconduct or default or irregularities in discharge of her duties as Sarpanch. What all the charges conveyed is that she has not followed the procedure prescribed for carrying out the work of Gram Panchayat. The charges are in connection with the work of block paving, which was needed to be carried out by the Gram Panchayat. There was no administrative sanction obtained for handing over the work as per the norms of the State Government. Again, no process, as was required, was followed for getting the work done. Various payments made to different agencies and persons for the purchase and labour work was not in accordance with law. Any expense needed to be made, if is between Rs.5000/­ to Rs.20,000/­, prices are required to be called for and if the purchase is to be made beyond Rs.20,000/­, a public notice in the local newspaper is a must by inviting tenders. The financial transactions, which have been carried out in connection with this block paving, have not been followed, resulting into temporary financial irregularities.

3.3 The respondents, in exercise of powers under sub­section (1) of section 57 of the Act, has issued show cause notice where the petitioner remained present before respondent No.3 on 13.05.2016 and supplied the documents. She denied all the charges. According to her, she took over the charge of Padva Gram Panchayat on 29.06.2015 and she was not aware of the procedural aspect. The Talati­cum­ Mantri, who was discharging the duties when she took over as Sarpanch, did not guide the petitioner. She also pointed out that the resolution was passed in Gram Sabha on 10.08.2015. She being not aware that she needed to invite tenders, called for competitive price and after verifying the prices, the parties which had tendered the lowest price was given the order of purchase and work of paving block. It was sanctioned in 2013­14 for sum of Rs.3 lakhs. At the relevant point of time, the Sarpanch,who was holding the charge had passed the Resolution and had got the Completion Certificate. The sanction for doing the work was given on 02.01.2015 and the work was completed on 26.08.2015.

3.4 In short, her say is that it was the earlier Sarpanch, who was to invite the competitive prices. She being unaware of the procedure of the purchase and rules and in absence of any guidance from Talati­cum­ Mantri, what all she expended is the sum of Rs.31,804/­, which is more than the sanctioned amount till the Development Officer had issued the cheque dated 01.09.2015 for the sum of Rs.2,68,228/­. According to her, there are no financial irregularities also with regard to the charge of maintaining dead stock registers or the property register and having regard to the bills of purchase in the sub­Register, she has urged that she was unaware of such procedure for having been elected as Sarpanch for the first time. She did not find any such register and was not even aware of such maintenance. It is her say that respondent No.3, without even affording the opportunity of personal hearing and only on the basis of written reply of hers, removed her from the post of Sarpanch wrongly in exercise of powers under sub­section (1) of section 57 of the Act. She was refused the personal hearing and, therefore, she was compelled to prefer an appeal under sub­section (3) of section 57 of the Act. She was not even provided with enquiry report and other record relied on by respondent No.3 for removing her.

3.5 She also is aggrieved by the fact that her appeal came to be rejected by the respondents on 21.10.2016. Therefore, this petition praying for following reliefs:­

"(25) In the aforementioned premises the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court would:­

(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 21/10/2016 in Appeal No.71/2016, confirming the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated August 8, 2016 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Padva Gram Panchayat.

(B) Be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 21/10/2016 in Appeal No.71/2016 confirming the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated August 8, 2016 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Padva Gram Panchayat and further be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants and representatives from restraining petitioner from the charge and duties as the Sarpanch, Padva Gram Panchayat, pending admission haring and till final disposal of present petition, in the interest of justice.

(C) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit, just and proper, in the interest of justice."

4 It is needed to be mentioned that the petition has been preferred on 28.10.2016. When it was taken up for hearing on 17.10.2018, she had already completed her term as the same expired in January, 2017. It was two months prior to her term getting completed, she had approached this Court by way of this petition and this Court on 07.11.2016 had issued the notice directing further that the vacancy may not be filled in (Coram: R.M.Chhaya, J.).

4.1 On 25.07.2018, this Court (Coram:Bela M. Trivedi, J.) passed an order continuing interim relief.

5 In the Affidavit­in­reply of respondent No.3, it is contended inter alia that several irregularities and illegalities in the administration of Gram Panchayat had been noted while the petitioner acted as Sarpanch. The detailed report had been submitted by Taluka Development Officer addressed to the District Development Officer (DDO) on 14.03.2016. This included the administrative irregularities and financial irregularities. It was deemed appropriate by the authority concerned to issue notice dated 02.04.2016 under the provisions of section 57(1) of the Act for removal. It is also contended that the petitioner tried to shift the burden upon Talati­cum­Mantri and pleaded ignorance. However, on careful consideration of the material on record and after offering opportunities to the petitioner, she has been found guilty in this case and through a reasoned order dated 08.08.2016, she was removed from the post of Sarpanch.

5.1 The said order came to be challenged by way of Appeal NO.71 of 2016 and there also, reasoned order had been passed. It is also the say of respondents that on examining the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner since was involved in serious irregularities after thorough examination of acts and material, she has been removed from the post and when the same has been confirmed by the appellate authority, there is no need to entertain the petition. The five years' term as a Sarpanch of Padva Gram Panchayat also has expired on 24.01.2017 and, therefore, the State Election Commission, through a notification dated 28.11.2016, had declared the election programme for Padva Gram Panchayat and other 10,317 Gram Panchayats of the State of Gujarat. According to the respondents, what has been challenged is the order of respondents No.2 and 3 and not the election programme. Therefore, the request was made to vacate the ad interim relief.

6 Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying all allegations and averments. She has reiterated that there were no irregularities and illegalities and only procedural lapses have been emphasized in the allegations made by the Taluka Development Officer The Talati­cum­Mantri has not guided her properly.

6.1Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Chetan Virji Dhamecha vs. State of Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No.842 of 2008, where the Court had expected that the authorities would impart training to such newly elected officer bearers, particularly to those elected on the posts of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and SEBC and women.

6.2Reliance is also placed on the decision of Natha Markhi Solanki vs. State of Gujarat, in Special Civil Application No. 14564 of 2014 to urge that the Court has held that mere irregularities or illegalities in discharge of duties does not by itself empower the State to remove the Sarpanch. There must be supporting evidence to show that Sarpanch was guilty of misconduct. The availment of due opportunities also was denied to the petitioner by respondents No.2 and 3, who have acted mechanically at the time of removing her. It would cast stigma upon the Sarpanch and, more particularly, when there was no evidence to show that she has misused the power or committed any illegality.

7 This Court has heard learned advocate Mr.B.M.Mangukiya and Ms. Bela Prajapati for and on behalf of the petitioner.

7.1At the time of hearing, attention was drawn of the learned advocate that the term of the petitioner had already expired on 24.01.2017 and as such, the matter had already become infructuous, since the election process also had taken place at the end of such election term. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, this Court had protected the interest of the petitioner from the beginning and thereafter, such interim relief has continued till date, the learned advocate insisted to give a logical conclusion to the allegations levelled against the petitioner. He also has urged that removal since is a stigma and the same has taken place without taking into consideration various decisions of this Court, he needed to pursue the matter even knowing fully well that her term had expired on 24.01.2017 and the election for the very Gram Panchayat and other 10,317 gram panchayats have been declared by the State.

7.2 He has drawn the attention of this Court of the fact that five charges have been levelled against the present petitioner. They do not mean any financial irregularities or illegalities. It is not about any misconduct or misrepresentation or illegality of siphoning of funds. It is only the procedural lapse, where, according to him, no proper opportunity of hearing had been availed to the petitioner. Merely, on the basis of the material on record, without giving any regard to various decisions of this Court, both the authorities have acted against her. He further has urged that the very object for empowering women from scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and also from SEBC and reserving seat of Sarpanch for these women shall need to be regarded by the Court. Time and again, the Courts have held that imparting training to these persons would be a must, as otherwise the economic strata from which they are hailing from and other conditions are not conducive for them to administer on their own. The Talati­cum­Mantri, who is in the employment of the Government is expected to do the hand holding and the same is completely found missing in the instant case.

8 Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has urged that there was no reason for the Court to interfere for the term of Sarpanch is over. Moreover, due opportunities had been given and, therefore, there will not be any requirement for the Court to continue the interim relief when the term has already expired. He further has alleged that the allegations made are many and the Court need not be sympathetic, as it is unthinkable that she would have no clue of certain basic aspects.

9 Having heard both the sides and also on due consideration of the material on record, this Court needs to bear in mind the substantial changes brought about in the Gujarat Panchayats Act. The object and reasons for bringing about the material changes in the constitution of Gram Panchayat and its functioning shall need to be regarded by the Court, while adjudicating this matter, as the same shall be essential and vital.

10 The proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner on 29.04.2016, in her capacity as Sarpanch of Padva Gram Panchayat under section 57(1) of the said Act. The said provision provides for initiating action against the person for removal from the office.

10.1Apt would be reproduce this provision at this stage:­

"57. Removal from office:­ The competent authority may remove from office any member of the panchayat, the Sarpanch or, as the case may be, the Upa­Sarpanch, thereof, after giving him an opportunity of being heard and giving due notice in that behalf to the panchayat and after such inquiry as it meeds necessary, if such member, Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa­ Sarpanch has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or of any disgraceful conduct or abuses his powers or makes persistent default in the performance of his duties and functions under this Act or has become incapable of performing his duties and functions under this Act. The Sarpanch or, as the case may be, the Upa­Sarpanch, so remove may at the discretion of the competent authority also be removed form the membership of the panchayat."

11 It is quite clear from this that the competent authority has a discretion of removal from office, any member of the Panchayat, Sarpanch or Upa­Sarpanch after giving an opportunity of being heard and giving due notice in that behalf to the Panchayat. This needs to be followed an inquiry as may be deemed necessary and after holding the same, if the member or Sarpanch or Upa­Sarpanch as the case may be, is found guilty of misconduct in discharge of duties or of any disgraceful conduct or abusing his powers or making persistent default in performance of duties and functions or has become incapable of performing his duties and functions under this Act, such Member, Sarpanch or Upa­Sarpanch as per the discretion of the competent authority can be removed for the membership of Panchayat.

11.1 Sub­Section (2) of Section 57 provides that after following this procedure under sub­ section(1) of section 57, the competent authority may disqualify such person for the period not exceeding 05 years or in an eventuality of the resignation of such person or otherwise, who has ceased to hold any such office, on his or her having been found guilty or on his having committed the misconduct as specified in sub­section(1), such process disqualification needs to be undertaken within six months from the date on which the person resigns or ceases to hold any such office. This clearly also provides for an appeal to the State Government if aggrieved by either action under section 57 or sub­section (2) of section 57 of the Act.

12 In other words, conditions for removal under sub­section(1) of section 57 are (1) where concerned official is guilty of misconduct in discharge of his duties or (2) guilty of any misconduct (3) person abuses his powers or (4) makes persistent default in performance of his duties under this Act or (5) become incapable of performing his duties and functions under this Act. The powers are vested in the competent authority, which shall not exercise them without affording an opportunity of being heard and for which the notice also requires to be given to the person concerned and to the Panchayat. This shall have to be after making such inquiry as deemed necessary. Such order at the discretion of the competent authority would result into removal of Sarpanch, Upa­Sarpanch from the membership of Panchayat.

13 Reverting to the facts of the instant case, the petitioner had been issued notice on 29.04.2016 stating therein that (i) for block paving internal road work, which was communicated to be done and proposed, there is no resolution of Gram Panchyat. (ii) it is also the say that without availing the certificate of authorized officer, the Talati­cum­Mantri has given the certificate on 29.10.2015. (iii) Moreover, there are no competitive prices made available. The prices were obtained in person and not in a sealed envelope. (iv) Hari Om Tiles had been paid amount of Rs.9,11,138/­ towards block and Rs.15,270/­ towards purchase of cement. Shri Becharbhai D. Italia has been paid Rs.1,75,500/­ towards labour work of block paving and Shri Bipinbhai D. Italia has been paid Rs.42,112/­ toward purchase of grit. The total amount comes to Rs.11,43,520/­, which has been paid by Padva Gram Panchayat in the month of September, 2015. (v) In the area of scheduled castes people for block paving sanction was granted for work for Rs. 3 lakhs. (vi) There is no resolution in the Gram Panchayat meeting. The completion certificate dated 02.04.2015 also is not in accordance with law. (vii) The prices were not obtained in sealed cover. (viii) Hari Om Tiles has been paid Rs.1,91,464/­ towards purchase of block and Rs.7550 towards payment of cement. Shri Becharbhai D. Italia has been paid Rs.31,495/­ towards labour work for block paving. Shri Madhav Materials has been paid Rs.29,505/­towards purchase of grit and Shri Radha Movers has been paid Rs.8000/­ towards levelling block paving work. In total, Padva Gram Panchayat has made an expenditure of Rs.2,68,196/­ in the month of September, 2015, whereas the completion certificate indicates the expenditure of Rs.3 lakhs.

14 From the discussion held hereinabove, it can be noticed that the contract had already been given prior to the petitioner having taken over as Sarpanch of the said village. What has been alleged are the irregularities in executing the contract.

14.1The petitioner had taken over as Sarpanch on 29.06.2015. Reply to the notice under section 57(1) clearly mentions and it is not in dispute that there were no guidelines provided by the Talati­cum­Mantri when she took oath. She followed earlier Sarpanch. There are certain works done by Padva Gram Panchayat. The Panchayat received prices and Hariom Tiles had been given the contract as it was the lowest. The paver block work was sanctioned in 2013­14. The administrative sanction of which was granted on 02.01.2015 and the work was completed on 26.08.2015. There was no question of getting the competitive price for paver block work as she was not the Sarpanch. For contingency expenses again for the purchase between Rs.5000/­ to Rs.20,000/­. There were no guidelines from the Talati­cum­Mantri. The details provided in completion certificate and the expenses in its as per the grant. She has also explained satisfactorily as to why there is not even temporary misrepresentation of the amount of Rs.31,804/­. The completion certificate which was granted reflects Rs.2,82,345/­ the contingency work charge payment with 5% expenses makes it Rs.3,00,000/­, which is reflected in the completion certificate. There appears to be more an irregularity than an illegality.

15 It is not in dispute that the present petitioner, after having taken over in June, 2015 has not been trained at any point of time. Although, it is given to understand that periodical training continues in the case of Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and other office bearers. Though many a times it is imparted soon on election of these office bearers, but in case of the petitioner, no such training has been imparted and she was expected to handle the responsibilities of Sarpanch without such training. The women, who nearly consist 50% of the total population, have been chosen to shoulder the responsibility by ensuring that 1/3rd of the elected members are women by constitutional amendments. It is a clear direction to ensure that administration also can be benefited with the qualities of a feminine gender, like service to the humanity, empathy, concern and care of others, meticulous manner of handling any task of ordinarily and naturally happens with their biological gender, one is not to be oblivious of the fact that these officers require impeccable integrity and dedication. Yet where these women Sarpanch, who are not expected to have recognizable amount of formal educational qualification for them to be elected as either a member or the Sarpanch and their term is also for a limited period of three years would require training to run administration. Unless the requisite training is imparted and they are prepared for handling the administration or when there is no hand holding, such irregularities may occur. Apt would be to refer to the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.14564 of 2014 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 842 of 2008.

16 In Chetan Virji Dhamecha (supra), while setting aside order of removal, the Division Bench insisted on the need of training and also that for removal, which is a serious matter, grounds need to be made out as it is a valuable right of the elected person, which is curtailed.

16.1Relevant paragraphs of the decision are reproduced as under:­

"10.In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the appellant was elected as a Sarpanch in January 2007.

The minutes book also shows that all the bills received by the Panchayat from the date of his assuming office of Sarpanch on 20th January 2007 till 31st May 2007 were placed before the panchayat meeting only on 31st May 2007. It is, therefore, apparent that the appellant is a semi-literate person not conversant with the office procedures. The appellant was elected on a seat reserved for S.E.B.C. Candidate. The authorities were expected to impart some training to such newly elected office bearers elected on seats reserved for Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe / S.E.B.C./Women. The purpose of making such reservation by the constitutional amendments would be defeated if the elected office bearers in the local self government are not given such training regarding the procedures to be followed by such Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 16:53:17 IST 2019 LPA/842/2008 8/9 judgement public functionaries. It was certainly the duty of the Talati cum Mantri also to invite attention of the Sarpanch to such procedural requirements.

11.In the above factual background, we find considerable justification for reliance placed by Mr.Mangukiya on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and others (supra), wherein it is held that the elected President of a local body cannot be removed on the grounds of abuse of his powers or habitual failure to perform his duties when there are procedural mistakes in the discharge of duties. Removal from an elected office is a serious matter. The case for removal must be clearly made out before action is justified. Holding and enjoying an office, discharging related duties is a valuable statutory right of not only the returned candidate but also his constituency or electoral college. Removal curtails the term of the office holder and also casts a stigma upon him. The Apex Court therefore held that a case that grounds under a particular provision for removal are applicable must be clearly made out.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court would apply with full force.

12.We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order dated 11th August 2008 of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10263 of 2008. The impugned order dated 7th June Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 2008 of the District Development Officer, Surendranagar and the order dated 21st July 2008 of the Additional Development Commissioner are hereby set aside. The appellant (original petitioner) shall be treated as having been restored to the office of Sarpanch of Village Kankuvadi."

17 In Natha Markhi Solanki (supra), the Court quashed the removal on the ground that it was a trivial matter.

17.1Relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:­

"7. Removal of the petitioner as Sarpanch on the ground that he has failed to file caveat in the Court is too trifle charge. There is no other allegation against the petitioner, who belongs to weaker section of the society and was duly elected by the people of that area. This Court time and again has held that persons duly elected by democratic process cannot be removed on the ground of abuse of their power or habitual failure to perform their duties when there are minor procedural mistakes in discharge of their duties. Removing person duly elected is a serious matter. Grave charges of misconduct are required to be proved before removing the person so elected as such removal casts its stigma on the person which may affect his subsequent career. Case for removal must be clearly made out before the action is justified as holding and enjoying office and discharging related duties is a valuable statutory right of not only the person concerned but also the constituency from which he has been elected. The Apex Court in case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors. Reported in (2001) 6 SCC 260 has held that elected president of a local body cannot be removed on the ground of abuse of his power or habitual failure to perform his duties when there are procedural mistakes. The Apex Court, therefore, held that a case that grounds under a particular provision for removal are applicable must be specifically made out.

This Court in another case Vakatar Bhagvanjibhai Devabhai v. Additional Development Commissioner reported in 2011 (0) GLHEL­HC 225191 has held that, "mere irregularity or even an illegality in discharge of duties or causing loss to the Gram Panchayat did not by itself empower the State or its delegates to remove a Sarpanch from the elected office. There must be a finding supported by evidence to show that the concerned Sarpanch was guilty of misconduct in his duties under the Act persistently. On the basis of the material on record and findings recorded by the authorities under the Act and the findings recorded by the learned single Judge in his order, it is not possible to hold that case of appellant/original petitioner falls within the ambit of section 57 of the Act and the order of removal, therefore, was set aside".

This Court has considered the submissions made by both sides and also gone through the aforementioned law laid down by the Apex Court. This Court further reiterates the view expressed by the aforementioned judgments that removal without following proper procedure of law and without holding an inquiry was nothing but due to political rivalry because of defeat of the complainant in the elections."

18 Moreover, these are the candidates, who have been elected as office bearers on seats reserved for scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes, SEBC and women. These are the constitutional amendments, which had assured the new era in the arena of local self­Government bodies, who would have no clue with regard to the duties and obligations as the elected members and the office bearers and that would also continue the governance by proxy, by those undesired persons or who under the law are not supposed to be the Local Self­Government bodies. The Talati­cum­Mantri also are required to do the hand holding and their duties also have been specified in case of Chetan Virji Dhamecha (supra), the Court would remind the respondents of such requirements and their duties once again.

19 So far as the decision of this Court in the case of Maniben Gagaji Thakore vs. The State of Gujarat and another, 2008(3) GLH 204, it has laid down the law that once the procedure laid down in sub­section(1) of Section 57 is followed and removal of a member, Sarpanch or Upa­ Sarpanch is ordered, then also sub­section(2) of section 57 would come into play, which speaks of the disqualification of a person, who has resigned from his office as a Member, Sarpanch or Upa­Sarpanch or, who otherwise has ceased to hold such office. The Court has held that proviso to sub­section(2) of section 57 of the Act cannot be extended through liberal interpretation so as to permit the authority to pass an order of disqualification at any point of time only upon initiation of the proceedings within six months from the resignation or cession of office inasmuch as it is penal provision which must be interpreted strictly. While so holding the Court has relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commission of Income Tax, Mumbai and another, 2007(6) SCC 329 and in the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi,(2007) 9 SCC 665 holding that the penal statute must receive strict construction and only in exceptional cases, principles of purposive construction shall apply to a penal statute.

20 Hear, there is no question of exercising the powers under sub­section (2) of section 57 of the Act and, therefore, this authority will have no bearing even otherwise if there is any move of issuance of show cause notice under section 57(2) of the Act. It could not have been done beyond six months from the date of removal.

21 Even otherwise, as discussed above, the Court is of the opinion that what has been alleged and established is the irregularity and not illegality. Therefore, the order of removal under sub­section (1) of section 57 of the Act though permitted, in the opinion of this Court, was not desirable.

22 Considering the fact that term of the person has already expired and the new election also has taken place and, therefore, the newly elected lady also has been made party respondent NO.4 herein.

23 Considering the fact that the material for removal of hers from the post of Sarpanch, as provided in the show cause notice and, as can be made out therefrom is her inefficient handling that she was held to have misconducted in discharging her duties, there does not appear to be any abuse of power nor having made persistent default in functioning and not having able to perform her duties and functions, the Court holds that the order of removal from the office deserves to be interfered with. However, her term having expired in the month of January, 2017 and considering the fact that election, which had already taken place by now is over, there is no need to give any direction for reinstating her with a consequential relief, having found the act of hers the result of absence of training and predominantly and essentially to be termed as irregularities, her allegations of non­observance of principles of natural justice could have made this Court to relegate her to the authorities concerned, however, as the term of office is long over, there may not be any need for relegating her to the authorities and the stigma having gone of her removal, the petition though is allowed, the interim relief is not to continue nor is there any need for consequential relief.

24 It is being reiterated while parting that there should be continuous educational programme for Members, Sarpanch and Upa­Sarpanch to train them in governing Local Self­Government bodies to bring about the true meaning of objectives and bringing about the amendment in the Constitution.