1985 Supreme(Raj) 467

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Dwarka Prasad, N.M.Kasliwal, S.N.Bhargava, JJ.
Bhura Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 759 of 1984.
Decided On : 9-05-1985

The inquiry under Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchavat Act, 1953 starts when the stage of sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 is reached and the State Government considers the representation of the Panch or Sarpanch concerned in response to the show-cause notice issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 21.

Headnote:

PANCHAYAT RAJ - Suspension of Sarpanch - Order of suspension passed by State Government - Validity - Stage at which inquiry under Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchavat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can be said to have started - Principles of natural justice - Applicability.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, Bhura Lal was elected as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Partapgarb, under Panchayat Samiti Thanagazi in the district of Alwar, in the year 1981. While he was continuing to hold the office of Sarpanch, one Laxmi Narain made a complaint to the Collector, Alwar on January 12, 1984 alleging that Bhura Lal had committed misconduct in the discharge of his duties as Sarpanch by promoting the interests of Prabhu Uayal and that he had knowingly caused loss to the Panchayat by failing to prosecute the defence on behalf of the Panchayat in a suit filed by Prabhu Dayal in the court of Munsif, Thanagazi against the Gram Panchayat, Partapgarh. A preliminary inquiry in the matter was conducted by the Additional District Development Officer, Alwar at the instance of the Collector, Alwar. The Additional District Development Officer gave a notice to show cause to the petitioner along with a copy of the complaint. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice on April 5, 1984. The Additional District Development Officer, after making a (preliminary inquiry into the matter, submitted his report to the Collector, Alwar on May 10, 1984. He took the view that Bhura Lal Sarpanch intentionally did not defend the suit filed by Prabhu Dayal against the Gram Panchayat, with a view to support the financial interests of Prabhu Dayal and deliberately, intending to cause loss to the Panchayat. The report of the preliminary inquiry was considered by the Collector, who in turn forwarded the same to the State Government with his opinion that the charges of the nature specified in sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act were prime facie made out against the petitioner. The State Government after considering the report of the Collector, Alwar relating to the preliminary inquiry, got a statement of charges prima facie made out against the petitioner, drawn up on July 6, 1984. A statement of such charges was sent to the petitioner alongwith a notice filing upon him to show-cause in writing as to why they should not be enquired into. Together with the charge-sheet and the show-cause notice, an order passed under sub section (4-A) of Section 17 of the Act dated July 6, 1984 was also forwarded to the petitioner, suspending him from holding the office of Sarpanch and debarring him from taking part in toe proceedings of the Panchayat or from doing any act as Sarpanch while under suspension.

Finding of the Court:

1. The inquiry under Section 17(4) of the Act can be said to have started when the stage of sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 is reached and the State Government after reading the representation of the Panch or Sarpanch concerned, if any, in response to the notice issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 either drops the proceedings or proceeds to appoint an inquiry officer to enquire into the charges. 2. The order of suspension under Section 17 (4A) is an order of interim nature and it could be passed only after an active application of mind by the State Government to the question as to whether an emergent or immediate action is called or on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report and its decision to send a charge sheet and show cause notice to the Panch or Sarpanch concerned. 3. An order of suspension of an elected office holder should only be passed by the State Government when the charges levelled against him involve misconduct of serious magnitute and are of such a nature as to warrant immediate or emergent action.

Issues: 1. At what stage can an inquiry under Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchavat Act, 1953 be said to have started? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice are applicable to the suspension of a Sarpanch under Section 17(4A) of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The inquiry under Section 17(4) of the Act can be said to have started when the stage of sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 is reached and the State Government after reading the representation of the Panch or Sarpanch concerned, if any, in response to the notice issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 either drops the proceedings or proceeds to appoint an inquiry officer to enquire into the charges. 2. The principles of natural justice are not applicable to the suspension of a Sarpanch under Section 17(4A) of the Act, as the order of suspension is an interim measure and the Sarpanch has an opportunity to submit a representation in response to the show-cause notice and the State Government is required to consider the representation before taking a final decision.

Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed, subject to the observations made above.