Woman Empowerment

 

 

By Adv. R. S. Agrawal 

 

A VERY stern and timely warning has come from the Bombay High Court’s principal seat at Mumbai, through its judgement delivered on April 6, 2023, in the case-Sandip Ramesh Khidbide v. Pratima Prakash Gaikar and two others – State of Maharashtra and the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan, Navi Mumbai, against frustrating the very object of woman empowerment, in case, if under the guise of advancing the interest of woman , a gross misconduct of a particular woman is condoned. According to a Single Judge Bench of the High Court presided over by Justice N J Jamadar, the reason assigned by the State Minister for Rural Development, in support of the impugned order passed by him, that unseating of a democratically elected woman Sarpanch would be contrary to the policy of empowerment is unworthy of acceptance.

The Minister has lost sight of the fact that removal of an office-bearer for proved misconduct also serves a larger public interest and strengthens democracy. In any event, where the post of Sarpanch is reserved for a woman, upon removal of respondent-!, Pratima from the said office, in the consequent election only a woman candidate could have been elected to the office of Sarpanch of the village Ambivali (Bu) in Raigad district. Against the backdrop of rather uncontroverted facts of the case and tenor of justification sought to be offered on behalf of the respondent (Removed) Sarpanch, a pivotal question which wrenches to the fore is whether the alleged acts of the respondent-Pratima, constituted misconduct within the meaning of sec 39(1)(i) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

In this context, the High Court has made a reference to a Supreme Court’s Judgement delivered by its one of its 3-judge Benches, in the case- State of Punjab and Others v Ram Singh, Ex-Constable – JT 1992(4) SC 253, wherein the import of the term, ”Misconduct” was expounded with reference to the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary and P. Ramnatha Aiyar’s Law Lexi-con. The observations in Paragraphs No. 5 and 6 are material and on perusing that, it could be seen that the word ‘misconduct’ though not capable of precise definition, on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude. It must be improper or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, willful in character, forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgement, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character, its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve.

The respondent-Pratima (the removed Sarpanch) has conceded both the facts. One, change of the mandate to operate the bank account despite being fully cognisant of Government Resolution of June 30, 2018, mandating it to be operated under the joint signature of the Sarpanch and Aasha Sevika. Two withdrawal of the amount of Rs 15,549/- by presenting a self cheque under her signature that of Vaishali Dasgaonkar. The submission on behalf of the respondent-Pratima that these acts were not actuated by any design to have a wrongful gain is required to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the claim for payment of expenses allegedly incurred by Dasgaonkar was contentious. The statement of Mrs Rajmane, the Aasha Sevika to which the reference is made in the report of Block Development Officer throws light on the circumstances in which the mandate was changed and the amount came to be withdrawn.

Mrs Rajmane informed that though a resolution was passed in the meeting of the Committee on October 19, 2018, to change the mandate to operate the bank account of the Committee, yet, the cheque book, pass book, cash book and the charge was not handed over till September 5, 2020. Mrs Rajmane further informed that Mrs Dasgaonkar had repeatedly approached her to put signatures on cheques. She had declined to draw the cheques as Mrs Dasgaonkar had no bills nor the resolutions passed to incur the expenditure. This statement by Mrs Rajmane seals the issue.

The situation has been that the expenses, which were allegedly incurred by Mrs Dasgaonkar had neither any authorisation nor supported by vouchers. After the change in the mandate to operate the bank account of the Committee, Mrs Dasgaonkar made an endeavour to persuade Mrs Rajmane to sign the cheque for withdrawal of the amount. Even the respondent –Pratima concedes that she had requested Rajmane to sign the cheque but she refused. The entitlement to payment of Mrs Dasgaonkar was contentious in the least. In these circumstances, the act of the respondent-Pratima to change the mandate to operate the bank account contrary to the Government.

Resolution can only be said to be driven by the desire to overcome the impediment in operating the bank account. Such manoeuvring of the proceedings and accounts to cause benefit to a person to the detriment of the interest of the village Panchayat can only be termed as misconduct. It could not have been explained away by asserting that the respondent -Pratima was not the ultimate beneficiary. Even this submission is required to be accepted with a pinch of salt as the amount was withdrawn by presenting a self cheque. Therefore, it could not be urged that Pratima was not the ultimate beneficiary. The authorities below have recorded consistent findings that respondent-Pratima acted in breach of the Government Resolution and also indulged in financial irregularity. The only issue, the High Court felt that it has been called upon to consider is as to whether the Rural Development Minister was justified in insulating the respondent from the consequences which entail the proved misconduct.

Very candidly, the HC has opined that empowerment of woman by providing political representation has been one of the main features of strengthening the democracy at grass root level. Participation of woman in local-self governance is considered a measure of ensuring a greater probity in public life. In the light of the discussion in the judgement, the HC has held that the State Rural Development Minister was clearly in error in setting aside the well reasoned order of the Divisional Commissioner and allowed the petition, by quashing the Minister’s order passed on May 26, 2022 and restore the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on April 19, 2022 for removing the respondent woman Sarpanch from her post.