1973 Supreme(Raj) 99

Rajasthan High Court
Tyagi, J.
Thanaram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 647 of 1972
Decided On : May 07, 1973

Headnote:(a) Panchayat Samitis and zila Parishads (Removal of Pradhan and Up Pradhan) Rules, RR. 40(2)—Misuse of power of suspension—Elected Pradhan against whom adverse report had been pending for over three years and against whom inquiry was being held suddenly charge sheeted and suspended—Held that in the circumstances suspension was mala fide.(b) Constitution of India, Arts. 226 and 227—Rule of law means that act of authority, though technically and legally correct, should not be violative of the manner and procedure laid by law—Sudden and abrupt use of discretionary power ignoring all steps of procedure and necessary consultations violative of rule of law.(c) Constitution of India, Arts, 226 and 221—Plea that where Government acted in exercise of its discretion court should not interfere repelled and held that where exercise of discretion was mala fide and violative of rule of law courts cannot be a silent spectator.

       It is clear from the record that serious allegations were made against the petitioner in the year 1968. On enquiry made by the Deputy District Development Officer, most of the charges were found to be correct, but despite that report the Government did not think it necessary to take immediate steps against the petitioner and entrusted the preliminary enquiry to the Collector. Even thereafter the Government did not show any active interest to see that the matter is expeditiously disposed of. However, the allegation of the petitioner is that when he fell out from Shri M. the interest of the Government was aroused and the old allegations which were resting in cold storage for 3-1/2 years were immediately dug out to take action against the petitioner. A note was prepared in the Secretariat suggesting that a charge sheet may be served on the petitioner and he may be suspended till the enquiry is finalised. This note was processed through all the necessary stages at the Secretariat level and reached the hands of the Minister on that very day and the Minister agreed with the suggestion made by the Assistant Secretary to serve the petitioner with charge sheet and to suspend him forthwith. It was done on the eve when a new Government was to be formed after the general elections and when the Minister was about to leave the charge of the portfolio of the Department of Panchayats.

       Held = The Government have not placed any material on the record to justify such a hurried action against the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner who after the report of the Dy. District Development Officer was holding the charge of his office as a Pradhan had, in any manner, used his office of the Pradhan for his personal or political ends. It is also not pleaded by the Government that it had any reasonable apprehension in its mind that if the petitioner had not been temporarily removed from the office he was likely to use his office to create impediment in the progress of the enquiry. In these circumstances it cannot with any justification be argued on behalf of the Government that order of suspension under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 40 had become necessary before the enquiry was launched against the petitioner. It is really surprising to note that if the petitioner who continuously held the charge of his office of Pra-dhan for more than three years even after certain allegations were found to have been established against him did not misuse his office, how all of a sudden he became an undesirable person to hold the charge of that office to which he was elected by the voters of that constituency. In a State wedded to democracy rule of law acts as a constant] deterrent for temptation against the misuse of the power conferred by the Legislature on the Government which functions as a trustee : to safe-guard the rights and the interests of the people. The expression "rule of law" primarily implies that the life, liberty, property and reputation of the people shall not be damaged or impaired except under the authority of the law, that is to say, for a purpose stated in the law and the manner so stated. Rule of law is not a mere mechanical rule just requiring compliance with statute.lt is much more ; it is a principle. Thus, If the law laid down by the Parliament itself authorises that the Government or any official thereof may act in a manner stated therein, then he has not only to follow the procedure laid down in the statute but has to follow the purpose for which such a law has been enacted by the legislature. An act may be perfectly legal and yet it may be contrary to rule of law. There is no doubt that the administration always exercises some degree of discretion, but the area of discretion left with the administrator should be delimited by certain clear-cut norms so as to exclude the exercise of arbitrary power.

       Held = If the Court comes to the conclusioa that the motive for passing the impugned order was wholly extraneous the Court should not feel helpless to redress the wrong done to the person injured by such an order, otherwise if the Court refuses on technical grounds to extend protection to the aggrieved person, then the whole concept of the rule of law will be rendered nugatory. The Court shall be failing in the discharge of its pious duty if like a silent spectator it allows the use of power by an authority for a purpose different from the one for which such a power is) conferred by the Legislature on they authority.} In this case the power to suspend the delinquent Pradhan has been used by the Government for an ulterior motive. The power which has been vested in the Government to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the functioning of the Panchayat Samitis cannot be allowed to be degenerated into a medium for taking revenge from the political adversaries.

       Held = From the totality of these circumstances placed on the record, there is no escape from conclusion that the power under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 40 of the Act was misused by the Government with a mala fide intention to humiliate the petitioner. (Paras 19, 20, 24, 25 and 26)