Mrs. Urmilabai W/o Rameshchandra Shrimali – Pujari & Ors. vs The Joint Charity Commissioner & Anr.

Heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the respective parties.

The present appeal is filed under Section 41-D(6) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “MPT Act” for brevity) in order to challenge judgment and order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Region, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Suo Motu Inquiry No.1 of 2016, whereby the appellant is dismissed from trusteeship of Shri Durga Devi Mandir, Jalna bearing PTR No.A-287 (Jalna), in exercise of powers under Section 41-D(1) of the MPT Act. By the said order, Shri. R. U. Panpatil, Inspector of Public Trusts is appointed to discharge the duties and functions of the trustees till appointment of new trustees as per Section 41-D(4) of the MPT Act and further directions are issued him to take steps for amendment of scheme of the Trust as per Section 50A(3) of the MPT Act.

Shri Durga Devi Mandir, Jalna is a public trust registered under the MPT Act. The present appellant, her husband, late Rameshchandra and son, late Pankajkumar, were trustees of the said public trust.

An inquiry was conducted with respect to functioning of the Trust in which irregularities pertaining to maintenance of records and submission of audit reports and budgets were noticed. It was noticed that original respondent No.3 (son of the appellant) expired on 13.08.2005 and yet Change Report reporting the said change was not filed. During the visit on 15.05.2015, the Inspector found that several donation boxes were placed at different places in the temple. On 03.07.2015, order for seizure of donation boxes was passed. The Inspector had visited the temple of the Trust on 30.07.2015 for sealing donation boxes and noticed that all the donation boxes in the temple were removed. The Inspector submitted a report for taking appropriate action against the trustees. Based on the Inspector’s report, the Assistant Charity Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “ACC” for brevity) submitted report dated 18.12.2015, recommending removal of the appellant, her husband and son as trustees on account of negligence in performance of duties, misfeasance, malfeasance, breach of trust and misappropriation of the amounts collected in donation boxes.

The learned Joint Charity Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “JCC” for brevity) framed charges against the present appellant and her husband relating to persistent defaults in submission of audit reports and budget of the Trust, neglect in filing of Change Report after the death of son/original respondent No.3, misappropriation and improper dealing with property of the Trust.

After recording the evidence and hearing the appellant, the learned JCC held that the charge pertaining to default in submission of audit reports, neglect in duty and misappropriation were proved. Charge pertaining to not following orders was held not to be proved.

Perusal of the findings recorded by the learned JCC will demonstrate that there was failure on the part of the Trustees to file audit reports of the Trust since the year 1996. The said fact is also not in dispute. The record indicates that audit reports for a period from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2015 were filed on 07.07.2015. The audit reports from 01.04.2015 and onwards are filed in the year 2025. The learned JCC has recorded that as per Section 32 of the MPT Act, the trustees of a public trust are under obligation to maintain regular accounts of the Trust and at the end of every financial year, balance sheet should be prepared and the account should also be audited. It is held that by not filing the audit reports regularly, the trustees have committed breach of obligation cast under Section 33 of the MPT Act. The learned JCC has also recorded that the accounts are not properly maintained, bank account of the trust was opened as late as in the year 2024 and that after order dated 03.07.2015 was passed by the learned ACC directing inspector to seal the donation boxes in the temple, the donation boxes were removed from the temple prior to 30.07.2015 i.e. the date on which the Inspector was to seal the same as per order dated 03.07.2015.

In the light of aforesaid, the learned JCC has passed the aforesaid order directing dismissal of the appellant as trustee of the said public trust. It may be reiterated that the other two trustees, i.e., son and husband of the appellant had already expired prior to passing of the order which is impugned in the present appeal.

Mr. Khot, learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently argues that an action of removal of a trustee of a public trust is a drastic action and unless a case of misappropriation of funds is conclusively established, order of removal cannot be passed. He contends that non-filing of audit reports is a technical wrong for which a drastic action of removal cannot be taken. The learned advocate contends that there is no evidence on record and no finding that the funds of the temple have been misappropriated. Although there is a finding that the audit reports were not duly filed, the Trust did not have a bank account for inordinately long period and donation boxes were removed. The learned advocate also argues that apart from this, the order does not indicate that a possibility of imposing a lesser punishment is even considered by the learned JCC. In support his contention he has placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court:-

Per contra, Mr. S. C. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), vehemently argues that for a period of around 20 years the trustees did not file audit account statements. He contends that the Trust did not even have a bank account, which was opened only in the year 2024. He further argues that the appellant has clearly admitted in her cross-examination that the donation boxes were removed from the temple in order to avoid seizure of the same. The learned AGP, therefore, argues that the order impugned is just and proper and does not warrant interference.

Upon hearing the parties following points arises for consideration:-

The facts of the case are not in dispute.

The audit reports for the period from 01.04.1996 and onwards have been filed consolidately in July 2015. It is also admitted that bank account in the name of the Trust was opened only in the year 2024. Likewise, it is also not in dispute that after passing of the order for sealing of donation boxes, the donation boxes have been removed from the temple premises.

Legal position with respect to action under Section 41-D is well settled. This Court has repeatedly held that the said action is a drastic measure and that any action under the said provision should not be taken unless any lapse on the part of the trustees is proved to be actuated by dishonest intention. It is repeatedly held that mere failure to file audit reports should not result in taking drastic action under the said provision and that non-filing of audited accounts is mere an irregularity. This Court has also held that unless apart from belated filing of audited accounts, misappropriation of funds is also established, action of removal of a trustee cannot be sustained. It is also held that the punishment be imposed under the provision should be guided by sense of proportionality.

In the present case, the audit accounts have been filed belatedly. There is no dispute with respect to the same. However, the audit accounts were filed in July 2015. The impugned order is passed on 02.01.2026. Although there is a finding that the audit reports are not filed within time and the Trust had also not open bank account till the year 2024, there is no direct finding with respect to misappropriation of funds.

It must, however, be recorded that, the action of removal of donation boxes in order to avoid sealing of the same is a serious wrong committed by the trustees. In the event, the trustees were aggrieved by the order directing sealing of donation boxes, they should have taken appropriate legal recourse. The act of removing the donation boxes from the temple in order to avoid seizure cannot be accepted. Normally, in view of the said act of removal of donation boxes, this Court would have refrained from interfering with the order impugned.

However, in the present case, as recorded above, the audited accounts have been filed, albeit belatedly. After filing of the audit reports till the year 2015, the Trust has filed audit reports for the years 2015-2016 till the year 2020-2021 on 12.09.2025. The income as per the audit reports is as under:-

It appears that the income derived is not exorbitant. Such amount probably would be needed for managing the affairs and observing rituals of religious functions associated with the temple. Although the act of removing donation boxes cannot be countenanced, in the peculiar facts of the case, having regard to the income as is reflected from the audit reports, possibility of taking a desperate action to ensure smooth functioning of the affairs of the temple of the trust cannot be ruled out.

Perusal of the judgment will demonstrate that the learned JCC has not made any tentative assessment with respect to income of the temple. As is held by this Court, repeatedly mere failure to file audit reports within time cannot be a ground for taking drastic action of removal. However, undisputedly, the donation boxes were removed from the temple by the trustees. In the considered opinion of this Court, in order to form a tentative opinion as to whether the removal was with a view to misappropriate the amount collected in the donation boxes or with a view to ensure smooth continuation of routine activities of the temple ought to have been ascertained. However, there is no finding in this regard.

Order dated 02.01.2026 directs the Inspector of trust to take over the reigns of the Trust. This Court has not passed any interim order in the present appeal for a period of around 10 months. The temple is under the management of the Inspector. Details and particulars with respect to sources of income, total income and expenditure are now available with the Inspector. The learned JCC should revisit the issue and take a fresh decision in the matter by taking into consideration the income of the Trust and its expenses. Based on this, inference can be drawn and opinion can be formed as to whether the donation boxes were removed in order to misappropriate the funds or simply to ensure that funds are available to continue with day to day routine activities of the temple of the Trust.

It must also be borne in mind that the office of trustee devolves by inheritance. The appellant is survived by her grandson, who is eligible for being a trustee of the Trust.

The judgment also does not indicate as to whether imposition of punishment of suspension which is a punishment of lesser degree would be sufficient or not.

In the result, this Court is of opinion that, now that, there is material with the authorities to make a tentative assessment of income and expenditure of the Trust, as also, the sources of income, the learned JCC should revisit the entire matter again, in view of the income of the Trust, which appears to be meager going by the copies of audit reports filed under Schedule-X. The learned JCC, based on the income and expenditure of the current year shall make a rough assessment of income and expenses during earlier years and then take a informed decision as regards action should be taken under Section 41-D or not, as also, what action should be taken. However, having regard to the fact that the donation boxes were removed from the temple premises, I am not inclined to disturb the current situation with respect to management of the temple and the Trust. The learned JCC shall take into consideration the legal position as laid down under the authorities referred by learned advocate for the appellant. In view of the aforesaid following order is passed:-