Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dt. 12.04.2001 Annexure-8 passed by the Director and Ex-Officio Dy. Secretary, Government Department of Panchayti Raj, Jaipur.

2. According to the facts narrated in the writ petition, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jawla, Tehsil Parabatsar, District Nagaur in the month of Janauary, 1965 and remained as Sarpanch till December, 1997. According to the petitioner, in the meeting of Gram Panchayat which was said to be held on 31.01.1965, certain resolutions were passed unanimousl by the Members of Gram Panchayat. Against which the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 lodged a false complaint against the petitioner on concocted grounds before the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

3. While issuing charge-sheet on 21.02.1978, explanation was sought from the petitioner. The petitioner gave his detailed explanation and reply to the charges leveled against him to the respondent Panchayati Raj Department on 20.03.1978.

4. The respondent Panchayati Raj Deaprtment has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 07.04.1978 along with the enquiry report conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Parbatsar to the effect that why the finding be not recorded under the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short “the Act of 1953” hereinafter). In Pursuance of the said show-cause notice, the petitioner appeared on the given date i.e. on 24.05.1978 before the Panchayati Raj Department at Jaipur and filed reply along with requisite documents in support of his stand. After filing reply, no order whatsoever has been passed on the show-cause notice dt. 07.04.1978. However, all of a sudden the respondent Department again issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 10.01.2001 asking petitioner to show-cause as to why the finding be not recorded against him under proviso to Section 38(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act of 1994” hereinafter) for the same charges after 33 years. It is very strange that earlier, the Act of 1953 was in force and show-cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why the finding be not recorded under the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act of 1953 and for the same allegations, after the amendment of the Act, a fresh show-cause notice was given to the petitioner after 33 years as to why the finding be not recorded against him under proviso to Section 38(1)(b) of the Act of 1994.

5. In pursuance of the second notice issued on 10.01.2001 and received by the petitioner on 10.02.2001, he filed his reply on 15.02.2001 through registered A.D. Post and he has placed on record the reply as well as postal receipt and registered A.D. as Annexure-7 and according to the petitioner vide impugned order dt. 12.04.2001, the finding against the petitioner under proviso to Section 38 (b) of the Act of 1994 wre reocrded. In the order, it is observed that though service of show-cause notice is effected but no reply had been filed within 15 days. The petitioner is challenging the said order dt. 12.04.2001 on the ground that the respondent Panchayati Raj Department has committed an error and illegality while passing order Annexure-8 dt. 12.04.2001 for the charges related to the year 1978. It is also submitted that in pursuance of the show cause notice dt. 10.01.2001, the petitioner filed reply through registered post. He has placed on record reply as well as postal receipt and registered AD which clearly shows that though reply was given by the petitioner but without considering the reply, the respondent No. 2 has passed order impugned while recording the finding against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel also submitted that according to the facts narrated above, it is clear that initially, upon the complaint made by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, a show-cause notice was issued in the year 1978 and for near about 33 years, no final order was passed in the said enquiry and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document