Pustkala W/O. Devendra Muneshwar v. State Of Maha., Thr. Secy., Rural Development Dept., Mumbai And ORS.
2025:BHC-NAG:15069-DB 1 904-wp-7405-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7405 OF 2024 Pustkala W/o. Devendra Muneshwar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Aditi Y. Pardhi, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A. V. Palshikar, AGP for respondent no. 1/State. Ms. Meghna Munshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Shri Mayank Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5. CORAM :- SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR & M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATED :- 24.12.2025 The petition challenges the resolution dated 01.10.2024 passed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 in Gramsabha of Grampanchyat, Karutola, Tahsil Salekasa, District Gondia whereby services of the petitioner were terminated on a complaint lodged by one Shri Raju Chute. 2.
The contention is that the petitioner was neighter given show-cause notice before taking the action nor the principles of natural justice have been followed in wake of the Government Resolutions (GR) dated 02.05.2011 and 22.01.2014.
3.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing revision before the Block Development Officer of the concerned village therefore, sought rejection of the petition. RR Jaiswal
2 904-wp-7405-24.odt 4.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the impugned resolution and the documents placed on record. It revealed that no show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and without seeking explanation from the petitioner, the impugned resolution came to be passed. Perusal of the GRs dated 02.05.2011 and 22.01.2014 revealed that delinquent is required to be heard rather the GR dated 22.01.2014 specifically asked for calling explanation from Gram Rojgar Sevak by the Extension Officer of the Panchayat within 15 days and to dispose of the case/complaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of the explanation.
5.
Having found that the procedure mentioned in GR dated 22.01.2014 has not been followed, we are of the opinion that principles of natural justice have not been followed in the matter and therefore, we set aside the impugned resolution dated 01.10.2024 passed by respondent nos. 4 and 5.
6.
If respondent nos. 4 and 5 intend to take any action against the petitioner, they shall follow the procedure mentioned in GR dated 22.01.2014.
7.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.) Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/12/2025 21:13:24 RR Jaiswal