Mrs. Alpana Ganesh Patil v. Block Development Officer & Ors.

1) Block Development Officer ] Panchayat Samiti – Palghar, ] District – Palghar. ] ]

2) Chief Executive Officer, ] Jilha Parishad Karyalay, ] Kolegaon, Palghar. ] ]

3) The Commissioner ] Kokan Bhavan, C.B.D.-Belapur, ] Navi Mumbai. ] ]

4) Prabhakar Bhalchandra Pimple ] Age: 68 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, ] Residing at Beside Pam High School, ] Post: Navapur, ] Pin code: 401501. ] ]

5) Chintaman Hirji Patil ] Age: Adult, Occupation Building construction/ ] Builder, Residing at 703, Near Leela Durga Fire ] Brigade Office, Link Road, Borivali (West), ] Mumbai, Pin code: 400091. ] ]

6) The State of Maharashtra ] … Respondents Ms. Yogita Deshmukh-Chitnis for the Petitioner. Mr. Raj Kamble a/w Mr. Prashant Dahat and Mr. Divesh Mehani for Respondent Nos.[1] & 2. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP, for Respondent Nos.[3] & 6-State. CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE: 9th January 2025.

JUDGMENT ( Per: A. S. Gadkari, J. ):- 1) By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has impugned Judgment and Order dated 11th April 2023 passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai. By the impugned judgment dated 11th April 2023, the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, has directed that, apart from the Sarpanch of the said village, an offence be registered against the Petitioner for her act of forgery in the original record of the Grampanchayat Pam, Taluka and District Palghar, i.e. Government record. The said direction is in paragraph No.1 of the operative part of impugned Judgment and Order.

2) Heard Ms. Chitnis, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Kamble, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.[1] & 2 and Ms. Thakur, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.[3] & 6. Perused entire record.

3) The record indicates that, a complaint was filed by Respondent No.5 against the Respondent No.4 under Section 39(1) of The Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, ‘said Act’). During the course of enquiry, the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Navi Mumbai found that, the Petitioner, a Gramsevika of village Pam, Taluka and District Palghar had indulged into an act of forgery and/or tampering with the Government record and therefore by its impugned Judgment and Order has directed that, a crime be registered against the Petitioner being Gramsevak and Sarpanch of the said village.

4) Ms. Chitnis, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner strenuously argued that, in an inquiry or proceeding under Section 39(1) of the said Act, the Divisional Commissioner has no authority or right to direct lodgment of crime and investigation against the Petitioner who was and is neither member, Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch of the said village panchayat. That, under Section 39 of the said Act only the member, Sarpanch or Upasarpanch of a concerned Grampanchayat can be removed and/or action can be initiated against them, if the necessary mandate of the law is complied with. That, as the Petitioner was merely an employee of the Government she cannot be prosecuted under the said Section. She submitted that, the Petitioner has been exonerated in departmental inquiry by the same Officer and therefore also she is not liable to face prosecution for her alleged act of forgery in the Government records. She therefore submitted that, the directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner in the impugned judgment at paragraph No.1 may be quashed and set aside.

5) Perusal of record indicates that, there is supporting and corroborative material before the Divisional Commissioner while arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioner prima-facie indulged into the act of forgery of Government record. For this precise reason, the Divisional Commissioner has directed the concerned Officer to lodge a crime against the Petitioner.

6) The contention of Petitioner’s Advocate that, the State is supporting her; that, no forgery at all is committed or disclosed on the perusal of record and other relevant arguments, is the probable defence of the Petitioner before the Court, if after investigation Police chooses to file a chargesheet, as contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C..

7) According to us, at this stage there is no reason to disbelieve the findings recorded by a very responsible Government Officer of the rank of a Divisional Commissioner, who after scrutinizing the entire material on record, has recorded a finding that, the Petitioner has indulged into the act of forgery and/or tampering with the Government record.

8) The argument that the Petitioner cannot be removed and/or prosecuted in an inquiry under Section 39 of the said Act, is not appealable to us. It is for the simple reason that, during the course of the inquiry of the said complaint lodged by Respondent No.5 against Respondent No.4, the Divisional Commissioner noticed the fact that, the Petitioner has indulged into the act of forgery and/or tampering with the Government record.

9) In the Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of Respondent Nos.[1] and 2, dated 5th October 2023, Mr. Narendra S. Revandkar, the Block Development Officer of Palghar Zilla Parishad has made a categorical statement in paragraph No.23 that on 6th September 2022, the Petitioner gave a response to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad. In the said letter, in the last line the Petitioner categorically accepted her ‘mistake’ and apologized for the same. It is clearly indicative of the fact that the Petitioner accepted her mistake and asked for apology for irregularities committed by her. Thus, it prima-facie reinforces the findings recorded by the Divisional Commissioner directing lodging of crime against the Petitioner.