Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA, J
Smt. Sita Devi Gurjar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CW / 11135 / 2024
Decided On : 06-01-2025
(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 33(a), 38(1), 38(4), and 46(1) - Suspension of elected representative - The petitioner was suspended based on a preliminary enquiry report without being granted an opportunity of hearing, which was deemed permissible under the Act - The court found that the charges of non-compliance were grave enough to warrant suspension. (Paras 22-33)
(B) Natural Justice - The court held that the absence of a prior hearing does not invalidate the suspension order when a preliminary enquiry is conducted. (Paras 27-30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, was suspended on allegations of non-compliance with statutory provisions after a preliminary enquiry found charges against her to be proved.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the suspension order, stating it was within the jurisdiction of the State Government and did not violate principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could be suspended without a hearing, if the order was made with due application of mind, and if the charges constituted grave misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State Government had the authority to suspend the petitioner based on the preliminary enquiry report, and the non-convening of meetings was serious enough to justify suspension.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
REKHA BORANA, J.
1. An application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC has been filed on behalf of the applicant Smt. Kaushal Sharma who has been handed over the charge of Pradhan after suspension of the present petitioner. It has been submitted that she took charge of the office on 08.7.2024 and if any order is passed in the present petition in favour of the petitioner, she would definitely be affected and hence, deserves to be impleaded as a party-respondent.
2. In the specific opinion of this Court, the applicant Smt. Kaushal Sharma cannot be termed to be a necessary or essential party to the present litigation. The applicant cannot be termed to have any vested right in her so as to continue as a Pradhan. Further, it is not the case where no effective order can be passed or that adjudication of the issue in question cannot be made in absence of the said applicant.
3. The application for impleadment, is hence rejected.
4. The present writ petition has been preferred aggrieved of the order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure-16) whereby the petitioner i.e. the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti Jahajpur, District Shahpura (Bhilwara) had been put under suspension on the premise that the charges of she having not complied with the provisions of Section 33(a) and Section 46(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’) were found to be proved in the preliminary enquiry report.
On the same date i.e. 05.07.2024, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet wherein two charges were framed against her.
5. The case of the petitioner is that on the complaints made by the Panchayat Samiti members regarding the non-formation of the requisite Committees and non-convening of the general/special meetings of the Panchayat Samiti, the Collector, Shahpura vide order dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure-7) directed the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shahpura to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter and submit a factual report by 15.02.2024. The said Additional Chief Executive Officer submitted its factual report dated 14.02.2024 to the Collector, Shahpura who, finding the same to be an incomplete report, vide order dated 15.02.2024, directed him to conduct a detailed enquiry keeping into consideration the issues as pointed out in the said order.
6. The Collector, vide the said order, also observed that the statements of the then Development Officer as well as the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti (i.e. the petitioner) had not been recorded by the Enquiry Officer and hence, the same be also recorded.
7. In compliance of the order dated 15.02.2024, the Additional Chief Executive Officer served notice dated 05.05.2024 on the petitioner calling upon her to file her reply/defence/explanation by 16.05.2024. The petitioner, vide communication dated 16.05.2024, prayed for further time because of her medical condition at that point of time. After that no communication whatsoever was made by the Additional Chief Executive Officer nor was the petitioner informed of any subsequent date.
8. However, meanwhile an enquiry report dated 21.06.2024 was submitted by a Committee constituted by the Additional Commissioner and Deputy Secretary II (Enquiry) in the matter. No notice whatsoever was served by the said Committee on the petitioner before filing of the enquiry report. Meaning thereby, no opportunity of hearing was granted to her.
9. On basis of the enquiry report dated 21.06.2024 as submitted by the Committee constituted by the Additional Commissioner, the State Government proceeded on to pass the impugned order dated 05.07.2024 which is in total contravention to the basic principles of natural justice as well as in contravention to the provisions of the Act of 1994.
10. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned dated 05.07.2024 being a total mechanical one and without any application of mind deserves to be quashed only on the said sole ground. He submitted th
The court affirmed that suspension of an elected representative can occur based on a preliminary enquiry report without prior hearing, provided the charges are grave enough to warrant such action.
Suspension of an elected representative is valid when misconduct is established, with the suspension being justified under relevant statutory provisions, ensuring accountability and public confidence....
The initiation of an enquiry under section 38(1) of the Act of 1994 can occur based on a preliminary enquiry or on information otherwise available with the State Government, as per Rule 22(2) of the ....
The court upheld the suspension of an elected representative based on prima facie evidence of misconduct, emphasizing that judicial review cannot interfere with charge-sheets unless issued by an inco....
The court affirmed that the State Government can suspend a Sarpanch based on inquiry initiation, even without a preliminary report, provided the member is given an opportunity to explain.
Point of law: power of suspension may be invoked by the State Government, if the proceedings have been commenced for removal of a member as provided under subsection (1) of Section 39 of the Act of 2....
The court established that suspension of a Sarpanch is permissible when an inquiry is initiated under the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and Rules.
The court established that the suspension under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, was justified when the petitioner was found involved in a corruption case and the procedural r....
Suspension of an elected official under ongoing criminal proceedings is valid, yet procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries must be maintained—misconduct finding quashed for lack of hearing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
