Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—These two writ petitions raise identical questions of facts and law, therefore, they are being decided together.

2. Writ petition No. 10903/2009 has been filed by Ganesh Choudhary, who was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rammilia, Panchayat Samiti Bhinai, District Ajmer, in January, 2005, assailing show-cause-notice dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure-1) issued by respondent No. 2 Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, vide which proceedings of his removal under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, `the Act of 1994') were initiated and enquiry-report dated 1.7.2009 of the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer, on which basis aforesaid show-cause notice was issued.

3. Writ petition No. 8011/2008 has been filed by Smt. Jadav Bharti, who was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhawani Kheda, Panchayat Samiti Pisangan, District Ajmer, assailing charge-sheet/notice dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure-1) under Section 38 of the Act of 1994, whereby she has been asked to submit explanation on various financial irregularities.

4. Shri S.K. Saksena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, argued that aforesaid enquiry report and show cause-notice, issued to petitioner Ganesh Choudhary, are based on completely unfounded audit objections. In fact, all this has been done at the instance of his political rivals. Charge against petitioner Ganesh Choudhary is that he, despite reminder of Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, failed to comply with objections pointed out by audit party for financial years 1995-96 and 1996-97, and that he misused the government money, are totally baseless. Petitioner submitted reply dated 17.8.2009 to show-cause-notice, to the Assistant Commissioner, wherein he clarified that the work executed during relevant period was entered in the measurement book, attendance of labour was recorded in the muster roll and payment of wages was also made by the Tehsildar. No specific allegation of supervisory negligence has been made against petitioner. Record and cash book of Gram Panchayat are maintained by its Secretary, who, as per Rules 177 and 331 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, is responsible for maintenance of its record. It is thus argued that Secretary of Gram Panchayat is responsible for maintenance of record, accounts, cash-books, payments, muster-roll and accounts of construction work, quality of work as per Rules 177 and 331 of the Rules of 1996 and not the Sarpanch.

5. Shri S.K. Saksena, learned counsel argued that enquiry has not been conducted as per Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996, which in itself is a complete code. Learned counsel for petitioner further argued that according to Rule 22(1), the State Government may, before taking any action under sub-section (1) of Section 38, either on its own motion or upon any complaint, ask the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer to get a preliminary enquiry conducted and sent his report. In this case, it is the Divisional Commissioner who asked the Chief Executive Officer to hold enquiry, who in turn entrusted this task to Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad. Preliminary enquiry has thus been conducted by Additional Chief Executive Officer, who had absolutely no jurisdiction and competence to do so. It is argued that powers of State Government under Section 38(1) may have been delegated to Divisional Commissioner but Divisional Commissioner, himself being a delegate, could not redelegate those powers to Chief Executive Officer and on the same analogy, Chief Executive Officer also could not further delegate those very powers to Additional Chief Executive officer.

6. Shri S.K. Saksena, learned counsel for petitioners, argued that in the case of petitioner Smt. Jadav Bharti, enquiry has been conducted by Panchayat Prasar Adhikari straightway on direction of Additional Chief Executive Officer, who had received a complaint against her. According to Rule 22(1) of the Rules of 1996, it is only

Click Here to Read the rest of this document