Inquiry for misconduct can be continued under new municipal laws despite earlier proceedings, preventing double jeopardy while ensuring accountability.

JUDGMENT :

SUNIL BENIWAL, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:-

“(i) The impugned order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure-18) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to discharge duties as Chairperson and member of Municipality, Napasar.

(iii) The respondent authorities may kindly be restrained from undertaking inquiry under Section 39 of the Act of 2009 against the petitioner.”

2. The facts in nutshell are as under:-

2.1 The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Napasar on 10.10.2020. Due to a staff shortage, the Gram Panchayat, during Gram Sabha meetings held on 20.11.2020 and 21.12.2020, decided to temporarily appoint three persons, namely, Kalyan Singh (Panchayat Assistant), Gajendra Pareek (Chowkidar), and Prem Singh (Peon) on a fixed remuneration basis, effective from 25.10.2020 and 21.12.2020.

2.2 Subsequently, on 25.02.2021, the Gram Panchayat sought approval for these contractual appointments from the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner.

2.3 Following a complaint regarding these appointments, the Gram Panchayat resolved to terminate the engagements of the aforesaid three persons on 31.12.2021. An inquiry report dated 17.01.2022 concluded that prior approval from the Panchayat Samiti was mandatory and, in its absence, the appointments were irregular, warranting termination.

2.4 A further inquiry was initiated to examine the appointments and assess any financial loss incurred by the Gram Panchayat. The second inquiry report, dated 02.11.2022, recommended recovery of the amounts disbursed to the said three persons, noting that no such recovery had yet been made.

2.5 Based on the allegations of misuse of position and financial loss caused to the Gram Panchayat, the Panchayati Raj Department decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner (Sarpanch) and the Gram Vikas Adhikari. A communication regarding this was issued to the petitioner by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner, on 27.03.2023. Another notice dated 21.06.2023 was issued seeking an explanation as to why action under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1994") should not be initiated. The petitioner submitted her response on 01.11.2023. As the authorities found her explanation unsatisfactory, a notice for a personal hearing was issued on 28.02.2024. Subsequently, charges under Section 38 of the Act of 1994 were formally framed against the petitioner on 06.09.2024. The specific charges are reproduced below:

2.6 Aggrieved by the initiation of an inquiry, the framing of charges, and the commencement of proceedings under Section 38 of the Act of 1994, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7192/2024. While notices were issued in the matter, the writ petition remains pending. As no interim relief was granted, the proceedings continued, and a notice dated 18.09.2024 was served on the petitioner by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, seeking her explanation. The proposed inquiry was to be conducted under Rule 22 of the RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”).

2.7 Before the inquiry could be concluded, a notification dated 07.11.2024 was issued, declaring Gram Panchayat, Napasar as a Class IV Municipality. Consequently, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2009”), the petitioner assumed the position of Chairperson of the Municipal Board, Napasar.

2.8 Upon assuming charge as Chairperson, another notice dated 28.05.2025 was issued under Section 39 (1) of the Act of 2009, calling for an explanation and framing charges against the petitioner, which were identical to those previously framed under the Act of 1994. For ready reference, the same is reproduced as under:-

The petitioner submi