An elected representative cannot be placed under suspension in a routine manner and the government must satisfy itself that the charges are of a grave nature and that the continuation of the incumbent in office would seriously prejudice the judicial enquiry or that it is reasonably impracticable to continue the elected representative in office during the pendency of the enquiry.

ORDER :

1. Although, prayer in the writ petition is also made to quash and set aside the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 04.01.2023; but, at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his challenge in the writ petition to the legality and validity of the order dated 04.01.2023 (Annexure-3) placing her under suspension as also the order dated even whereby, charge of post of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Sapotara, District Karauli, has been handed over to the Deputy Pradhan.

2. Before proceeding to decide the matter on merit, this Court deems it just and proper to decide the Application No. 1/2023 filed by the applicants, Ms. Rupanti, Ms. Samay Bai Meena, Ms. Rekha Bai Meena, S/Shri Purshottam Meena, Ganesh Meena and Ram Singh Gurjar, the elected Members of the various Wards of Panchayat Samiti Sapotara, District Karauli under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking their impleadment as respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of dereliction in discharge of her duty by the petitioner, the entire development work of Panchayat Samiti Sapotara came to a standstill. He submits that the applicants are responsible and accountable to the voters of the area and have time and again represented to the authorities against the petitioner and hence, be impleaded as respondents.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a lis between her and official respondents wherein, action of the respondents in placing her under suspension is subject-mater of challenge. He submits that the applicants are neither necessary nor proper party to the litigation and the application filed by them deserves to be dismissed.

5. It is trite law that in a lis in between an individual and official respondents, the stranger, even if the complainant, is neither necessary nor proper party.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Mohd. Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, 2016 SCC Online SC 1887, held as under:

“It is a settled principle of law, which does not need any authority to support the principle, that the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be forced to add any person as party to his suit unless it is held keeping in view the pleadings and the relief claimed therein that a person sought to be added as party is a necessary party and without his presence neither the suit can proceed and nor the relief can be granted. It is only then such person can be allowed to become party, else the suit will have to be dismissed for non-impleadment of such necessary party. Such does not appear to be a case here.

We do not find that the presence of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the facts of this case is required for deciding the legality of notice impugned in the suit on merits because the dispute centers around the question of legality and validity of the notice which, as mentioned above, arises between respondent No. 1, who has issued the notice and the person to whom it is given, i.e. appellant.

In the suit in question, the Court is not called upon to adjudicate the rights between the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in relation to the suit house. Any such dispute, if arises, the same can be decided in the separate suit, which is pending between the parties or may be filed, if required, by the parties against each other but such dispute cannot be tried on the cause of action pleaded in the present suit by the appellant where the lis is essentially between the appellant (plaintiff) and respondent No. 1. Merely because the suit house is the subject matter between all the parties is no ground to get the dispute arising between the parties settled in one suit regardless of the nature of cause of action on which the suit is founded.”

7. A Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Surendra Kumar Garg and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, held as under:

“(6) So far as the ground of locus-standi is concerned, it may