Statutory removal power and purpose-specific donations: Collector lacked jurisdiction, and the sums did not automatically become Panchayat property.

A statutory authority cannot remove a Gram Panchayat office-bearer unless the governing Ordinance expressly confers that power and the prescribed removal procedure is followed; on the stated scheme, the Collector lacked jurisdiction to remove the Sarpanch. Donations collected for a specified village purpose, such as construction of a Panchayat bhawan and seed godown, do not automatically vest in the Panchayat fund as general Panchayat property where the collection was purpose-specific and the statutory context does not support immediate vesting. At most, the collector of such sums may hold them in a fiduciary capacity pending the donors' consent, and non-deposit in the Panchayat fund does not by itself amount to a removable breach of duty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Collector had authority under the Vindhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Ordinance, 1949 to remove the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. (ii) Whether the donations collected for the village purpose had immediately vested in the Panchayat fund so as to justify the Collector's conclusion that the petitioner was bound to deposit them as Panchayat property.

Issue (i): Whether the Collector had authority under the Vindhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Ordinance, 1949 to remove the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between the Gram Sabha and the Gram Panchayat. The Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Sabha functioned as the corresponding office-bearers of the Gram Panchayat, and the Ordinance prescribed removal of the Sarpanch only through the procedure laid down for the Gram Sabha. The rules did not create a separate office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat or provide an independent removal mechanism for that office. As the prescribed procedure was not followed, the Collector could not assume jurisdiction to remove the petitioner from the office in question.

Conclusion: The Collector had no authority to remove the petitioner, and the removal order was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the donations collected for the village purpose had immediately vested in the Panchayat fund so as to justify the Collector's conclusion that the petitioner was bound to deposit them as Panchayat property.

Analysis: The collections were made for a specific object, namely construction of a Panchayat bhawan and seed godown, and were later proposed to be diverted only because the original purpose could not be fulfilled. The statutory provisions dealing with Panchayat funds were considered in light of the nature of the collection and the absence of authorisation for such collection as an official Panchayat function. The amounts were treated as subject to the purpose for which they were donated, and pending consent of the donors they did not become Panchayat property in the sense assumed by the Collector. At most, the person collecting them could be treated as holding them in a fiduciary capacity, but non-deposit in the Panchayat fund did not amount to a breach of official duty warranting removal under the Ordinance.

Conclusion: The donations did not vest immediately in the Panchayat fund in the manner held by the Collector, and the alleged non-deposit did not justify removal from office.

Final Conclusion: The impugned removal order was unsustainable in law because the Collector lacked the statutory power to pass it and the collection dispute did not furnish a valid basis for treating the petitioner as liable to removal from the office held.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority cannot remove an office-holder unless the governing enactment expressly confers that power and the prescribed removal procedure is followed; donations made for a specific purpose do not automatically become general Panchayat property where the statutory and factual context does not support such immediate vesting.

---