2015 Supreme(Raj) 2080
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
P.K.Lohra, J.
Ashok Ranka - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12921 of 2011.
Decided On : 15-12-2015
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Dr. Pratistha Dave, Additional Government Counsel.
The court reiterated the principle that a person cannot be a judge in his own cause and that the rule against bias applies to all tribunals and bodies which are given jurisdiction to determine judicially the rights of parties.
Headnote:
MUNICIPALITIES - DISQUALIFICATION - ELECTION - CHARGES AGAINST MUNICIPAL BOARD CHAIRPERSON - JUDICIAL INQUIRY - FINDINGS - VALIDITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - BIAS - RULE AGAINST BIAS - INTERESTED PERSON - ENDORSEMENT ON FILE - WORK ORDER CONTRARY TO NIT - LEGALITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Ex-Chairperson of Municipal Board, Rajsamand, challenged the impugned order declaring him ineligible for re-election as Ward Member for six years. The order was passed under Sections 39, 40, and 41 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, based on a judicial inquiry into charges of irregularities and misconduct during his tenure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was guilty of two charges: (1) making an endorsement on a file in which he was personally interested, and (2) issuing a work order contrary to the work specified in the NIT. The court held that the findings of the judicial inquiry were based on material available on record and were not infirm or contrary to law.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner from contesting the election was valid. 2. Whether the principles of natural justice, including the rule against bias, were violated during the judicial inquiry. 3. Whether the findings of the judicial inquiry were based on evidence and were legally sustainable. 4. Whether the court could interfere with the findings of the judicial inquiry in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned order was valid and that the petitioner was rightly disqualified from contesting the election. 2. The court held that the principles of natural justice, including the rule against bias, were not violated during the judicial inquiry. The petitioner's interest in the file on which he made the endorsement was sufficient to disqualify him from making any observations or recommendations. Similarly, the petitioner's issuance of a work order contrary to the NIT was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the NIT. 3. The court held that the findings of the judicial inquiry were based on evidence and were legally sustainable. The court noted that the petitioner had not examined any witnesses to substantiate his defense and that the enquiry officer had made a sincere effort to examine the relevant material available on record. 4. The court held that it could not interfere with the findings of the judicial inquiry in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court noted that it was not expected to re-appraise the evidence which was available on record during the judicial inquiry.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned order and the findings of the judicial inquiry.
JUDGMENT
1. - Petitioner, an Ex-Chairperson of Municipal Board, Rajsamand has preferred this writ petition to challenge the impugned order dated 26.09.2011 (Annex.8) passed by the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby he is declared ineligible for re-election of the Ward Member of the Municipality for six years from the date of the order. The order impugned against the petitioner is passed under Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short ‘the Act of 2009’).
2. Succinctly stated the factual matrix giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as Ward Member of Municipal Board, Rajsamand from Ward No.18 in the year 2006. Later on, the petitioner was elected as Chairperson of the Municipal Board by lottery. Projecting very tall claims about his abilities and impartiality during the entire tenure, it is submitted by the petitioner in the writ petition that the tenure came to an end in February 2011. When the petitioner was in helm of affairs as Chairperson of Municipal Board, Rajsamand, leader of opposition Mr. Chunnilal Pancholi lodged many complaints against him alleging serious irregularities in disposal of his work as Chairperson. While categorising all these complaints as frivolous and vexatious, the petitioner has submitted in the writ petition that all the complaints were of no substance. Be that as it may, the fact remains that complaints of the leader of opposition were taken cognizance by the Dy. Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Udaipur and vide communication dated 02.07.2009 forwarded the inquiry report prepared by him to the Assistant Director (Vigilance), Local Self Department, Jaipur. It appears that Dy. Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Udaipur conducted an inquiry during his visit to Municipal Board, Rajsamand on 18/19-06-2009 and arrived at a conclusion that allegations levelled by the leader of opposition against the petitioner are prima facie proved. This sort of situation facilitated a charge-sheet and statement of charges and in all four charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has mentioned with clarity and precision that during inquiry conducted by the Dy. Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Udaipur, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and for substantiating this assertion, the petitioner has laid emphasis on communication dated 02.07.2009 containing recitals that the Dy. Director has examined the record and heard Mr. Pancholi only. The report submitted by the Dy. Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Udaipur prompted the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department to issue a notice dated 24.08.2009 to the petitioner in terms of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’). By this notice, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation in relation to the charges levelled against him within a fortnight with a stipulation that if desired explanation is not furnished within stipulated period, proceedings under Section 63 of the Act of 1959 would be initiated against him. In the notice dated 24.08.2009, four charges were levelled against the petitioner. In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted his reply on 02.09.2009 (Annex.3). After considering reply/explanation of the petitioner, State Government was satisfied vis-a-vis charge No.2 and as such the said charge was dropped against the petitioner but for the remaining three charges i.e. charge Nos.1,3 & 4, a judicial inquiry was ordered and Special Secretary cum Joint Legal Remembrancer, Law Department was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Taking a dig at the stand of the respondents in mentioning the provisions of the Act of 1959, the petitioner has submitted that Section 63 of the Act of 1959 is replaced by Section 39 of the Act of 2009. During judicial inquiry under Section 39 of the Act of 2009, notices were issued to the petitioner accompanying the charge-sheet, list o
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
