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 incompetent authority.

ORDER :

1. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 while deciding the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9506/2025 submitted by the petitioner has directed this Court to decide this writ petition on its merits within a period of four weeks.

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, with the consent of counsel for the parties, final arguments have been heard and the writ petition is being decided by the present order.

3. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:

“(i) To quash and set aside the impugned suspension order dated 12.10.2024 (Annexure-5) so issued by the respondents.

(ii) To quash and set aside show cause notice dated 12.10.2024 (Annexure-6) so issued to the petitioner by the respondents.

(iii) The respondents may be directed to continue the petitioner to hold the post of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti-Chirawa during the pendency of enquiry.

(iv) Any other order or direction which may be considered just and fair in facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

4. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned suspension order dated 12.10.2024 as well as the charge-sheet issued to her on the same day.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu on 10.12.2020. Thereafter, on a complaint submitted by one of the members of the Samiti-Rohitash, proceedings of no- confidence motion were initiated against the petitioner on 09.07.2024, but the same were dropped on 18.07.2024. Counsel submits that within a short span of five days i.e. 24.07.2024, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner with an intention to remove her from the post of Pradhan. Counsel submits that the Preliminary Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on 05.08.2024, which concluded with the decision to conduct a detailed enquiry, but instead of conducting a detailed enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.10.2024 and was served with a charge-sheet on the same day. Counsel submits that the aforesaid exercise was carried out by the respondents with a mala-fide ill intention on a day which was declared as holiday on account of Dussehra and the same was in counterblast to the failure of the proceedings of no confidence motion initiated against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the reason for placing the petitioner under suspension on second Saturday/ Dussehra holiday i.e. on 12.10.2024, was obvious, as the Code of Conduct was declared by the State on account of Assembly Elections w.e.f.15.10.2024.

6. Counsel submits that as per Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act of 1994’), a person cannot be placed under suspension, unless any enquiry is initiated against him/her. When a member refuses to act or becomes incapable to act as such, or is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his/her duties or any disgraceful conduct, the State Government may after affording opportunity of hearing and making enquiry against him/her, may place him/her under suspension. Counsel submits that in the instant matter, none of the clauses are applicable as there was no disgraceful conduct or misconduct on the part of the petitioner in discharging her duties as Pradhan. Counsel submits that even the procedure contained under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules of 1996’) were not followed prior to passing of the order impugned. Counsel submits that in all eleven charges have been levelled against the petitioner and the charges No.1 to 6 pertain to violation of the provisions contained under The Rajasthan Transparency Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short ‘RTPP Act, 2012’) and The Rajasthan Transparency Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (for short ‘RTPP Rules, 2013’). Counsel submits that as per the circular issued by the State, f