KAN SINGH, J.—These are two writ petitions by a Sarpanch under Art. 226 of the Constitution and as they raise common questions, they were heard together. They can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.

2. On 31-8-70 two orders were passed by the Government removing Shri Rewat an, Sarpanch, from the office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mathania. In writ petition No. 2027 of 1970, the order of removal is Ex. 4 and in the other writ petition it is Ex. 8. The orders were passed in consequence of the inquiries held against the Sarpanch. I may narrate the facts of the writ petition No. 2027 of 1970 for appreciating the paints arising for consideration.

3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, in Mathania in the year 1960 for the first time. He was again elected as a Sarpanch at the next elections held in the year 1965. He states that as he belonged to Praja Socialist Party and as he had contested the Assembly elections against a Congress candidate, he incurred the displeasure of the ruling party. The Panchas of the Gram Panchayat, according to him, were persuaded to put obstructions in the smooth working of the Panchayat. An inquiry was started against him in accordance with r. 21(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules", by the Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi. On 9-2 66 the petitioner had been placed under suspension. The petitioner challenged the order of his suspension in this Court by writ petition No. 160 of 1966 and that order was set aside. The inquiry commenced against him by the Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi resulted in an order of removal, but on a review petition filed by the petitioner the Government set aside that order and the petitioner was reinstated. Thereafter in the year 1968 the petitioner was served with a fresh charge sheet and was again suspended on 7-3-68. As the inquiry was not being started while the order of suspension was being continued, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was No. 436 of 1968. This writ petition was allowed by this Court on 29-7-68 and the Government was directed to conclude the inquiry within three weeks, failing which the order of suspension would stand revoked. It is not necessary to recapitulate everything that the petitioner has asserted in the writ petition suffice it to say that the impugned order were passed in pursuance of the charges served on the petitioner on 26-7-66. Ex. 1 was a notice calling upon the petitioner to file his reply to the charges by 26-5-66 and Ex. 2 were the charges. Charge No. 1 was to the effect that in the order sheet of a case for the sale of Abadi land after the order dated 27-6-65 was recorded the petitioner had made an interpolation by inserting a sentence that the land had been sold and he had thereby abused his position as a Sarpanch.

4. Charge No. 2 was that the Sarpanch had sold 108 Sq. Gaz of land only for a sum of Rs. 3/- and this was irregular, as no auction had been held by him

5. The third charge was that he had disobeyed a stay order made by the standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti of the area.

6. An Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Government for making the inquiry and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer the Government gave a notice to the Sarpanch to show cause why he be not removed from Office and thereafter the Government passed the order of removal, Ex. 4 on 31-8-70.

7. The petitioner states that this order of removal was illegal because: (1) the matter has not been examined by the Government properly on a preliminary inquiry as required by r. 21 of the Rules, (2) the petitioner was not given a reasonable hearing as envisaged by r. 22(1) of the Rules which lays down that the State Government or the authority referred to in sub-r. (3) of r. 20 shall consider the findings of the Enquiry Officer, afford reasonable hearing to the person charged and thereafter pass such order as the Government

Click Here to Read the rest of this document