Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 1475
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Prakash Gupta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kamal Pathak - Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 778/2021
Decided On : 22-10-2021
Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with Mr. Yashodhar Pandey, Advocate, Ms. Archana, Advocate and Mr. Mehul Harkawat, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Naveen Dhuwan, Advocate, for the Respondent; Mr. B.L. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. N.N. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14807/2020, for the Applicant
The court affirmed the importance of following statutory procedures in municipal misconduct inquiries, particularly under the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009.
Headnote:
Interim - Appeal - Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 - Sections 39(1), 39(4) - The court discussed the provisions regarding preliminary and judicial inquiries into alleged misconduct of municipal officials, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural requirements in such inquiries.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, elected Chairperson of Nagar Palika, faced complaints leading to multiple inquiries by the Executive Officer. The appellants issued a notice to the respondent, which was stayed by the learned Single Judge, prompting this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge's interim order was appropriate given the pending writ petition and the need for a final decision on the matter.
Issues: Whether the learned Single Judge erred in staying the show cause notice issued to the respondent under the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that interim orders should not interfere with ongoing inquiries unless there is a clear violation of legal provisions, which was not established in this case.
Result: The appeal was disposed of without interference in the learned Single Judge's orders.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellants- respondents (for short, 'the appellants') against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby ex-parte interim order has been passed in favour of the respondent- petitioner (for short, 'the respondent') and the order dated 9.4.2021, whereby the application filed by the appellants to vacate the interim order dated 16.12.2020 has been dismissed.
Facts of the case are that the respondent was elected as a Chairperson of Nagar Palika, Pushkar. On the basis of a complaint submitted against him by the complainant, a factual report was sought by the appellants from Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Pushkar. The Executive Officer after preparing the report, sent the same to the appellants. Subsequently a second complaint was submitted against the respondent by the same complainant to the Minister concerned, on the basis of which a report was called from the Executing Officer. The Executive Officer conducted a summary enquiry, prepared the report and sent the same to the appellants. Thereafter the appellants constituted a Three Members' Enquiry Committee, which called for a detailed report from the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer again conducted the summary enquiry and submitted his report to the Committee. Subsequently, the Deputy Director vide his letter dated 8.10.2020 sought a factual report from the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Pushkar. The Executive Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report. Despite that the appellants served a notice dated 2.12.2020 to the respondent, which was challenged by the respondent by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14807/2020 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. After hearing the arguments, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order dated 16.12.2020 while issuing notice to the respondents, stayed effect and operation of the impugned notice dated 2.12.2020.
Thereafter the appellants put in appearance and filed an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the interim order, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 9.4.2021. Hence, this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that under Section 39(1) of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 (for short, 'the Act of 2009'), a preliminary enquiry was being conducted for the alleged misconduct of the respondent and therefore, a notice was issued to him and his explanation was sought, but without any reason, the show cause notice was stayed by the learned Single Judge, contrary to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Somya Gurjar Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6485/2021). He further submits that after conducting preliminary enquiry, a Judicial Enquiry was to be conducted by a Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge under Section 39 (4) of the Act of 2009. However, the learned Single Judge without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, stayed the show cause notice ex-parte and arbitrarily dismissed the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. On this count, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set-aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that thrice enquiry was conducted by the Executive Officer, but nothing was found proved against the respondent. The respondent is the member of opposition party and with malafide intention, the impugned notice has been issued against him. He further submits that the writ petition was directed to be listed for final disposal at admission stage on 13.5.2021, but subsequently the matter was adjourned and the next date in the matter is 26.10.2021. The impugned orders are just and proper and no interference therewith is required by this Court.
Heard. Considered.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of the fact that this appeal has been filed against the interim orders and the
