ULHAS MORAJKARversusANAND TULASKAR AND ANR

2026:BHC-GOA:1881
                                              (1)                     WP-554-2024.odt



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                               WRIT PETITION NO.554 OF 2024
                                          WITH
                          MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.482 OF 2026
                                            IN
                               WRIT PETITION NO.554 OF 2024

               Ulhas Morajkar,
               age 53, son of Mahadev N. Morajkar,
               R/o H.No.408, Norod Waddo,
               Sangolda, Bardez-Goa.                            Petitioner.

                     Versus

               1.    Mr. Anand Tulaskar,
                     major of age,
                     R/o H.No.96/5, Mae-de-Deus,
                     Sangolda, Bardez Goa.

               2.    Director of Panchayats,
                     Office of the Directorate of Panchayats,
                     Junta House, Panaji, Goa.                 Respondents.
                                                   …
               Mr. Chaitanya Padgaonkar with Ms. Anushri Ajay Naik Dessai with Mr.
               Shlok Rai, Advocate for petitioner.
               Mr. Vitthal Naik, Advocate for respondent no.1.
               Mr. Tukaram Gawas, Additional Govt. Advocate for respondent no.2.
                                                   …
                                       CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                RESERVED ON   : 31st AUGUST, 2026.
                PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.

               JUDGMENT:-

               1.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties,

               matter is heard finally at admission stage.


               2.    The petitioner impugns the judgment and order dated 13.5.2024

               passed by learned District Judge-1, North Goa, Panjim in Civil Revision

               Application No.28 of 2024 as well as the order dated 26.3.2024 passed
                              (2)                        WP-554-2024.odt



by the Director of Panchayats in case No.DD/PP/Comp/21/2023/8197,

thereby holding petitioner as ineligible to be re-elected as Member of

Village Panchayat till expiry of five years period and directing his

removal from post of Member of village panchayat of Sangolda for

present term which began from 22.8.2022.


3.    The petitioner was elected as Panch Member of the Village

Panchayat Sangolda for the term 2017 to 2022. Petitioner was also

elected as Sarpanch w.e.f. 7.4.2021. He continued in the office of

Sarpanch till 18.6.2022 till expiry of his term of election. Upon expiry

of term, fresh elections of village panchayat were held for the term 2022

to 2027. The petitioner contested election and was elected as a Panch

Member for the period from 2022 to 2027. The petitioner was also

elected as Deputy Sarpanch from August 2022 and was holding his

office.


4.    On 17.8.2023 respondent no.1 filed a complaint with the Director

of Panchayats/Respondent No.2 inter alia alleging that the petitioner

during his last term from 2017 to 2022, while acting as Sarpanch,

arbitrarily withdrawn Panchayat’s funds to the tune of Rs.8,70,935/- by

way of self withdrawals and same were utilized in gross violation of

prescribed procedure under Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short

hereinafter referred to as “said Act”). It is accordingly alleged that the

conduct of petitioner during the period from 2017 to 2022 amounted to
                                 (3)                       WP-554-2024.odt



remiss in discharge of the duties which was detrimental to the interest of

panchayat and therefore petitioner is liable to be removed from the

office of Sarpanch. The complaint filed by respondent no.1 was

registered as case No.DD/PP/Comp/21/2023/8197.              Petitioner was

served with the notice of complaint. The petitioner filed his reply

contending that there are no grounds to invoke the provisions of section

210 of the said Act. The allegations in the complaint are pertaining to

his past term as a Sarpanch and no action can be taken against him after

his fresh election in absence of any act of remiss in discharge of his

duties in his present term. The Respondent no.2 framed following

issues:-

                                   ISSUES

  A.       Whether it is legally permissible permissible for this
           authority to act under Section 210-A of the Panchayat Raj
           Act, and order the removal of the Respondent as a member
           of the panchayat, for acts of misconduct or remiss in duty,
           which may have been committed during his previous tenure.

  B.       Whether this Authority has jurisdiction to take cognizance
           of a complaint filed under section 210 of the Panchayat Raj
           Act.

  C.       Whether this authority can direct the Chief Executive
           Officer to take cognizance of the statements contained in the
           complaint and initiate an inquiry in terms of Section 210 of
           the Panchayat Raj Act.

  D.       Whether the respondent has withdrawn an amount of
           Rs.8,70,935/- from the savings bank account of the V.P.
           Sangolda without the authority of law and sans the
           statutorily prescribed procedure.
                                 (4)                       WP-554-2024.odt




     E.    Whether the Respondent has acted detrimental to the
           interest of the panchyat and exercised powers which are not
           expressly vested in him by or under this Act or rules or by-
           laws framed thereunder.?


          and finally concluded that the conduct of petitioner was

detrimental to the interest of the Panchayat and/or misuses or abuses of

powers beyond his authority in a capacity of Sarpanch in terms of

dedicates of section 210-A of the Act and directed removal of the

petitioner as a Member of village Panchayat Sangolda w.e.f 20.05.2021

and further declared him ineligible for election for the term of five years

w.e.f 20.05.2021. Eventually, hold that fresh election of the petitioner

on 22.8.2022 is void ab-initio and directed his removal as a Member for

the present term of Panchayat.


5.        Aggrieved petitioner preferred Revision Application no.28 of

2024 before the District Judge at North Goa, Panji. The learned District

Judge, by his order dated 13.05.2024 dismissed the revision application,

thereby upholding the order passed by Respondent no.2-Director.

Hence, this petition.


6.        Mr. Chaitanya Padgaonkar, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner submits that the scheme under section 50 (4) as well as 210-A

of the Panchayat Act nowhere prescribes for removal of the Sarpanch,

Deputy Sarpanch or Member of the Panchayat for any Act in discharge
                               (5)                      WP-554-2024.odt



of his duties during expired term of membership. The acts alleged in

the complaint are pertaining to last term of election for the period from

2017 to 2022. The complaint is filed on 17.8.2023 when petitioner was

freshly elected as member of Panchayat for term of 2022 to 2027. As

such, Director was not competent to direct petitioner’s removal on the

basis of allegations of misconduct during past term. Mr.Padgaonkar

would further submit that even otherwise petitioner was not served with

the show cause notice with specific charges which were to be answered

by him. Eventually, the procedure adopted by Director is contrary to the

law. On this count also, impugned orders are liable to be quashed and

set aside.


7.       In support of his contentions, he relies upon observations of

judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Narayan Atmaram

Borse Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 1, Vilas Bhagwat Jagtap

Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2 and judgment of the Supreme

Court in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad

and others3 to contend that an elected member can be removed in

exceptional circumstances upon strict adherence to the statutory

provisions and holding full fledged inquiry meeting requirements of

principles of natural justice and giving an incumbent an opportunity to

defend himself.


1    2005 (2) Mh.L.J. 1093.
2    (2022) 3 Mh.L.J. 209.
3    2012 (4) SCC 407.
                                 (6)                        WP-554-2024.odt



8.      Per contra, Mr. Vitthal Naik, learned advocate appearing for

respondent no.1 and Mr. Tukaram Gawas, learned Additional

Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 supports the

impugned orders contending that petitioner’s gross misconduct/abuse of

the powers while performing his duties as Sarpanch has been duly

proved. His election for subsequent term would not exonerate him from

misdeeds of last term and his removal is perfectly in accordance with

the scheme of the Act, which does not require interference in writ

jurisdiction of this Court.


9.      Having considered submissions advanced by learned advocates

appearing for respective parties, questions that require consideration are

as under:

      “Whether the complaint under section 50 (4) read with section
      210-A of the said Act could have been entertained against
      petitioner based on the allegations of remiss/misuse of powers for
      the last term of election of petitioner after his fresh election and
      assuming office for present term?”.

      “Whether the procedure followed by the Director has been
      vitiated for want of specific show cause notice incorporating the
      charges of misconduct to be answered by the petitioner.?”


10.     Before entering into merits of contentions of the parties, it is

apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the said Act. Section 50 of

the Act reads thus :-

            “50. Resignation or Removal of Sarpanch or Deputy
            Sarpanch :
                           (7)                        WP-554-2024.odt



      (1) The Sarpanch of the Panchayat may resign his office by
      writing under his hand addressed to the Director and the
      Deputy Sarpanch of the Panchayat may resign his office by
      writing under his hand addressed to the Sarpanch and in
      the absence of the Sarpanch to the Director.

      (2) Every Sarpanch or Deputy Sarpanch of the Panchayat
      shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if he
      ceases to be a member of the Panchayat.

      (3) Every resignation under sub-section (1) shall take effect
      on the expiry of ten days from the date of its receipt by the
      Director or the Sarpanch as the case may be, unless within
      the period of ten days he withdraws such resignation by
      writing under his hand.

      (4) Every Sarpanch or Deputy Sarpanch of a Panchayat
      shall, after an opportunity is afforded for hearing him, be
      removable from his office as Sarpanch or Deputy
      Sarpanch by the Director for being persistently remiss in
      the discharge of his duties or misconducting himself or
      misuses or abuses the powers or exercising the powers
      not expressly vested in him by or under the Act or the
      rules framed thereunder and the Sarpanch or Deputy
      Sarpanch so removed who does not cease to be a member
      under sub-section (2) shall not be eligible for re-election
      as Sarpanch or Deputy Sarpanch for such period not
      exceeding five years as the Director may specify in his
      order.

      (5) A Sarpanch or Deputy Sarpanch removed from his
      office under sub-section (4) may also be removed by the
      Director from the membership of the Panchayat for such
      period not exceeding five years as the Director may
      specify in his order.”

SECTION 210-A

      “210-A. Liability of members for removal. - A member of a
      Panchayat shall, after an opportunity is afforded for
                               (8)                        WP-554-2024.odt



         hearing him, be removable from his office as a member by
         an order passed by the Director, for persistent remiss in
         the discharge of his duties, or if such member acts
         detrimental to the interest of the Panchayat or misuses or
         abuses the powers or exercises powers which are not
         expressly vested in him by or under this Act or rules or
         bye-laws framed thereunder and the member so removed
         shall not be eligible for re-election for a period not
         exceeding five years as the Director may specify in his
         order.”


11.   Mr. Padgaonkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner

heavily relied upon the exposition of law by the Division Bench of this

Court in case of Narayan Atmaram Borse (supra), wherein this Court

while dealing with section 39 (1), (1A) and 2 of the Bombay Village

Panchayats Act (3 of 1959) made following observations :-

         “7. In our view, the scheme of section 39 (1) and (1A) of
         the said Act is quite clear. It is the misconduct during the
         tenure which is sought to be proceeded against the
         Sarpanch or Upsarpanch. Therefore, he is to loose his
         office for the remaining period of that term and therefore,
         also under sub section (1A) it is provided that once he is
         removed, he shall not be eligible for the election during the
         remainder part of the term of the Panchayat Samiti. The
         section does not provide for disqualification spreading
         beyond the term and if it does not so provide, we cannot
         read it into the section. That is clearly not the object of the
         provisions.”

12.   In light of the aforesaid observations, it is submitted that, removal

of Sarpanch under the scheme of Act cannot be beyond the term as

section does not provide for disqualification spreading beyond the term.

With a view to appreciate the aforesaid observations, it is necessary to
                               (9)                       WP-554-2024.odt



refer section 39 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, which reads

thus :-

          39. Removal from Office.

          (1) The [Standing Committee] may remove from office any
          member or any Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch who has been
          [guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or of
          any disgraceful conduct, or of neglect of] or incapacity to
          perform his duty, or is persistently remiss in the discharge
          thereof. A Sarpanch or an Upa-Sarpanch so removed may
          at the discretion of the '[Standing Committee] also be
          removed from the Panchayat :
          [Provided that, no such person shall be removed from
          office unless the Chief Executive Officer under the orders
          of the President of the Zilla Parishad concerned holds an
          inquiry after giving due notice to the Panchayat and the
          person concerned; and the person concerned has been
          given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and
          thereafter the Chief Executive Officer submits his report to
          the Standing Committee.]
          5[(1A) Where a person removed from office of the
          Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, he shall not be eligible for re-
          election as      Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch during the
          remainder of the term of office of members of the
          panchayat.]
          (2) The [Standing Committee] may subject to like condition
          disqualify for period not exceeding five years, any person
          who has resigned his office as a member, Sarpanch or Upa-
          Sarpanch and has been guilty of the acts and ommissions
          specified in sub-section (1):
          Provided that such action is taken within reasonable time
          after such resignation.
          (3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the [Standing
          Committee] under sub-section (1) or (2) may, within a
          period of thirty days from the date of the communication of
          such order, appeal to the Commissioner.
                               (10)                      WP-554-2024.odt



13.   Plain reading of the aforesaid provision would show that once a

person is removed from the office of Sarpanch or Upsarpanch, he stands

disqualified for re-election during the remainder of the term of office of

members of the panchayat. In wake of aforesaid backdrop, in case of

Narayan Atmaram Borse (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held

that the petitioner Sarpanch on expiry of his term on 31.4.2001 was

elected as Sarpanch on 20.11.2002 and then removed from the post of

Sarpanch by order dated 15.05.2004 passed by President of the Standing

Committee, hence, this Court held that scheme of section 39 does not

prescribe removal of Sarpanch or Upsarpanch holding him disqualified

spreading beyond the term. Similar view has been re-iterated by the

learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Vilas Jagtap (supra).


14.   So far as the provisions of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, sub-clause 4

of section 50 prescribes for removal of Sarpanch or Upsarpanch and

puts embargo for re-election as Sarpanch or Deputy Sarpanch for the

period not exceeding five years from the date of removal. Similarly,

sub-clause (5) of section 50 provides removal of Sarpanch or Deputy

Sarpanch from membership once removed for misconduct up to the

period of five years as specified by Director in his order. Similarly,

section 210-A of the Act provides for removal of the Member of

Panchayat for persistent remiss in discharge of his duties or misuse or

abuses of powers for the period up to five years as specified by Director
                              (11)                        WP-554-2024.odt



in the order from the date of his removal. Apparently, removal of

Sarpanch/Deputy Sarpanch or the Member is permissible for any act,

which is detrimental to the interest of the panchayat or for persistent

remiss in discharge of duties or misuse or abuse of the powers. Such

removal comes with further disqualification from re-election up-to five

years from the date of removal.


15.   Cumulative reading of aforesaid provisions demonstrates that, if a

complaint   prescribing   grounds    for   removal   of     the    member,

Upsarpanch/Sarpanch of the panchayat as prescribed under section

50(4) or section 210-A of the said Act is received, the Director, on

evidence or proof of existence of the grounds, not only direct removal

from the office; but also direct disqualification from election for the

period not exceeding five years as specified in the order. As such, there

is substantial difference in section 39(1) and (1A) of Bombay Village

Panchayats Act (3 of 1959) and section 50(4) read with section 210-A of

Goa Village Panchayats Act. In Bombay Village Panchayats Act,

removal is prescribed for remainder of the Term of the Sarpanch or

Upsarpanch. As such, once term is expired, no disqualification attaches

to such removal and election to village panchayat in the next term is not

forbided or removal does not spread over next term of election of the

panchayat. In Goa Panchayat Raj Act, once a Director is convinced of

existence of grounds of removal, under Section 210-A he can direct
                              (12)                      WP-554-2024.odt



removal from membership with further disqualification from election

up-to five years and such disqualification is not restricted to term of

election as a Member, Upsarpanch or Sarpanch.              It can bring

disqualification for the election for next term, if it begins within the

period of five years of disqualification or the period prescribed by the

Director under his order.


16.   In wake of aforesaid provisions of law, this Court needs to

consider as to whether Director can initiate proceeding for removal of

member on the basis of alleged misconduct of last term of membership

once he acquired office on expiry of earlier term by way of fresh

election and mandate for fresh term.      In present case undisputedly

petitioner is alleged of misconduct during his last term which expired on

18.06.2022. Thereafter, he has been elected as member for fresh term of

2022 to 2027 w.e.f. 22.08.2022 and application/complaint for his

removal has been filed by respondent no.1 on 17.08.2023. Admittedly,

after petitioner’s election for fresh term, he is not alleged to have

indulged into any activity which is detrimental to the interest of

Panchayat or persistent remiss in discharge of his duties. The action of

removal is solicited on the basis of alleged acts committed during his

last term.


17.   In light of aforesaid factual backdrop, it was not permissible to

initiate proceeding for removal against petitioner invoking Section 50(4)
                              (13)                      WP-554-2024.odt



and (5) or Section 200-A of said Act. The literal interpretation of

provision would suggest that Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch can be removed

for being persistently remise in discharge of his duties or misconducting

himself or misuse of powers. This would relate to acts committed

during that term of election. Once member acquires fresh mandate and

assumes office of member for his fresh term, Director cannot take

cognizance of any act of misconduct during last term of election. The

exception would be if proceeding for removal has been initiated during

same term of election for which misconduct is alleged and Director after

taking cognizance of such acts has already issued show cause notice to

the member and passes order of removal with further disqualification

for election for the period upto five years from date of removal and next

election takes place during currency of disqualification period

prescribed. In present case complaint for removal of petitioner has been

filed after fresh election for term 2022 to 2027 attributing misconduct

during last term of election. As such, fresh mandate in favour of

petitioner would nullify past misconduct during previous term which

stood closed.    The Director was therefore not justified in taking

cognizance of complaint and pass order of removal of petitioner

invoking Section 210-A of said Act.


18.   Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the

procedure was not followed or show cause notice was not given
                               (14)                     WP-554-2024.odt



specifying the charges to be answered by him. Perusal of the record

indicates that petitioner was served with notice dated 20.11.2023 in

DP/PP/Comp/21/2023/8197, which specified that the petitioner is called

upon to answer the complaint under section 210-A of said Act. The

record indicates that petitioner had filed a preliminary reply dated

23.01.2024 and detailed reply dated 29.2.2024, wherein the petitioner

averred in complaint and put up stand that amounts encashed under

cheques were paid to respective parties and vouchers were obtained

which are reflected in relevant entries of cash book under heading of

“Expenditure” on right hand side of the said cash book, and merely

because there was no resolution towards any expenditure it would not

enable complainant to allege fraud. Petitioner has given a details of the

expenditure made by him after withdrawal of cash amount of

Rs.8,70,935/- from the Panchayat’s fund through self withdrawal

cheques. According to the petitioner, section 64(1)(d) of the Panchayat

Act provides for expenditure after Rs.25,000/- p.m. by Sarpanch to

specify emergency and urgency. However, the Director found in his

order that withdrawal is much more beyond prescribed limit, which is

not appropriately accounted for and even beyond the budget approved in

terms of section 182 of the act.


19.   Admittedly, applicant is not charged for the misappropriation or

no criminal proceeding is instituted against him, the allegation remains
                                (15)                      WP-554-2024.odt



that petitioner has withdrawn the amount without adhering to the

procedure prescribed under provisions of said Act.


20.     In case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab4, Supreme

Court while dealing with provisions of Punjab Municipal Act relating to

removal of President observed in paragraph no.11, which reads thus:

      “The expression ‘abuse of powers’ in context and setting in
      which it has been used cannot mean use of power which may
      appear to be simply unreasonable or inappropriate. It implies
      a willful abuse or an intentional wrong. An honest though
      erroneous exercise of powers or an indecision is not an abuse
      of power.      A decision, action or instruction may be
      inconvenient or unpalatable to the person affected but it would
      not be an abuse of power. It must be such an abuse of power
      which would render a Counselor unworthy of holding office of
      President. In as much as an abuse of power would entail
      adverse civil consequences, the expression has to be narrowly
      construed.”

        It is further observed in paragraph no.12 as under:

       “person proceeded against under Section 22 of the Act has to
       be made aware of precise charge which he is required to meet
       and therefore he must be apprised of exact content of abuse of
       power attributed to him. The authority taking decision must
       apply its mind also the explanation furnished by person
       proceeded against.”

21.     In light of aforesaid exposition of law if nature of allegation

against petitioner are seen, it has been alleged that he has withdrawn

sum of Rs.8,70,935/- by self withdrawal and utilized same disregard to

prescribe procedure under said Act. The petitioner has placed record of

expenditure which is accepted to be genuine and correct. There is no



4   2001) 6 SCC 260.
                              (16)                      WP-554-2024.odt



allegation of misappropriation. Admittedly, expenditure is made during

difficult time of Covid and amount is utilized for Panchayat.


22.   Admittedly, applicant was not served with show cause notice. He

was simply given notice of proceeding under Section 210-A of Act

without specifying precise charge to be answered by him. Although

applicant was served with copy of complaint and he has tendered

explanation for allegations made in complaint, that itself would not

suffice requirement under law.       It was for Director to issue notice

containing specific charge to be answered by petitioner and then

proceed to decide if such charge is proved. This Court finds that non-

observance of aforesaid procedure would vitiate entire proceeding and

consequential order.


23.   It is trite that removal of elected representative shall be in

exceptional circumstances and upon strict adherence to the statutory

provisions and after holding a full fledged inquiry meeting requirement

of principles of natural justice and giving an incumbent an opportunity

to defend himself. As has been laid down by Supreme Court in case of

Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra), that elected official in local self

government has to be put on higher pedestal as against Government

Servant and for his removal more stringent and standard proof is

required. The removal of duly elected member must be on the basis of

proved misconduct. In present case allegation against petitioner are
                                (17)                      WP-554-2024.odt



relating to violation of procedure for expenditure of panchayat fund and

not intentional act that was detrimental to the interest of panchayat.

Therefore, going by material on record no case is made out for action of

removal.


24.      In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are unsustainable

in law. Therefore, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause

(A).


25.      In view of disposal of Writ Petition, pending Civil Application

stands disposed of.


26.      Rule is made absolute in above terms.



                                         (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                  JUDGE


aaa/-f