Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Removal of office bearers of'Panchayat.-(I) The State Government or the prescribed authority may after such enquiry as it may deem fit to make at any time. remove an office bearer- (a) if he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or (b) if his continuance in office is undesirable in the interest of the public: Provided thatriojJerson- shaUbi,removedliriies;,he has-h""ngiven' - ---, an opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed from his office. Explanation.-For the purpose' of this sub-section "Misconduct" shall include- (a) any action adversely affecting- (I) the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; or (ii) the harmony and the spirit,?f common brotherhood aIIlQngst all the people of Slate transcending religious. lin- guistic, regional, caste or sectional diversities; or . (iii) .the dignity. of women; or (b) gross negligence in the discharge of the duties under this Act. I[(c) the use of posItion or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any relative in the Panchayat or any action for eJdend- I Ins. by MP 2 of 199717-1-1997). rigour of S.39(1)(a) will not come in his way, merely because the appeal against acquittal has been admitted by High Court. True, it is that on appeal being admitted for hearing while exercising the powers of appeal; the judgment of acquittal can be reversed and the person acquitted can be con~icted, but the fact remains that there exist a judgment of acquittal, which is operative in his favour and, therefore, he cannot be deprived to enjoy the fruits of the same, merely because appeal against the same has been admitted. Ramesh v. State of M.P., 2013(1) MPLJ 229 = 2013(1) MPWN 102 = ILR 2013 MP 74 (DB).