Honble MATHUR, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.6.99 dismissing the writ petition seeking direction to quash article of charges dated 16.4.99 and the order of suspension of the same date.

(2). The admitted facts are that the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as `petitioner) was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Tinwari, District Jodhpur, in the year 1995. The Ward Pacnchas of the said Gram Panchayat Viz; S/Shri Nemi Chand Parihar, Ramswaroop Soni and others lodged the complaint dt. 1.5.98 before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur against the conduct of the petitioner. Another complaint was filed by Ward Panchas Shri Ramswaroop and Ganesh Ram on 2.5.98. Petitioner also filed a complaint on 4.5.98. On receipt of the said complaints, the Chief Executive Officer by order dated 11.5.98 directed Shri Chhotu Singh, Panchayat Extension Officer, to enquire into the complaints. The Extension Officer summoned the entire record of the Gram Pan- chayat and recorded the statements of various persons including the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and submitted number of documents in his defence and cross examined the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report to the Chief Executive Officer. He found the petitioner prima facie guilty of serious financial irregularities causing immense loss to the tune of lacs of rupees to the Gram Panchayat. The Chief Executive Officer after considering the report under Communication dt.12.4.99 recommended the State Govt. to initiate the process for removal and suspension of the petitioner. The State Government on receipt of letter and report of the preliminary enquiry, formed an opinion that action u/sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, here- inafter referred to as `the Act is necessary and, therefore, framed definite charges and communicated the same to petitioner under memo dated 16.4.99 (Annex.1). The petitioner was asked to submit his reply on or before 30th April, 1999. On the same day, by order dated 16.4.99 (Annex.5), he was put under suspension.

(3). It appears from the order of the learned Single Judge that petitioner gave up the case against the order dated 16.4.99 (Annex.1) i.e. framing of charges and the restricted his submissions only for quashing the suspension order dated 16.4.99 (Annex.5). Dealing with the contention of the petitioner that the Executive Officer had no jurisdiction to hold a preliminary enquiry as there is no order delegating any authority to him to hold a preliminary enquiry, the learned Single Judge expressed that it was not necessary to go into the question for the reason that even if the Chief Executive Officer under Rule 336(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj. Rules, 1996, hereinafter referred to as `the Rules was not competent to hold preliminary enquiry, the report/ documents filed by him, would fall in the category of having information `otherwise. The learned Single Judge relying on the Full Bench decision of this court in Bhura Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1), held that in a matter of suspension as an interim measure considering the administrative exigency, the requirement to follow the principles of natural justice is not attracted. On facts, the learned Judge held that before passing the order of suspension, it can not be said that the State Government had not followed the procedure or not acted in a manner as provided under the statutory provisions. In view of the finding, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, however, directed the respondents to conclude the enquiry and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of the order.

(4). It is contended by Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error of law in not appreciating that for taking action under Sec.38 (4)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document