Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Rasida Khatoon W/o Mainuddin Khan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11862/2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12086 of 2024
Decided on : 23-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common questions of law and facts are addressed in writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's counsel argues improper delegation of enquiry powers. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents argue valid delegation and inquire necessity. (Para 4) |
| 4. petitioner claims non-application of mind in suspension order. (Para 5) |
| 5. court examines the legal basis for suspension and enquiry. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. court assesses the validity of enquiry report and delegation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 7. clarifying the role of the additional collector in investigations. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 8. court states that administrative actions allow delegation. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 9. court determines the foundation of proceedings as valid. (Para 16) |
| 10. court discusses petitioner's claim of wrongful action against the commissioner. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 11. negative equality under article 14 is not recognized. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 12. court instructs care in interference with suspension orders. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 13. judicial discretion regarding inquiries must respect government authority. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 14. serious allegations justify suspension and inquiry against public figures. (Para 28) |
| 15. court declines to interfere with the petitioner’s suspension. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 16. court sets deadlines and procedural expectations for the enquiry. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
ORDER :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
For convenience of exposition, this order is divided in the following parts: -
INDEX
(1) Factual matrix of the case
(2) Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
(3) Submissions on behalf of the respondents
(4) Discussions and Analysis
(5) Conclusion and Directions
Factual matrix of the case:-
1. Since, these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, with consent of the counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together in all these matters and the same are being decided by this common order.
2. The petitioner has submitted three different writ petitions by way of (i) challenging the suspension order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the respondents; (ii) challenging the judicial enquiry conducted against the petitioner under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short, ‘the Act of 2009’); (iii) challenging the enquiry report, submitted by the Enquiry Officer, on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted by the Enquiry Officer, so appointed for this purpose, but instead the powers were delegated to the subordinate authorities.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:-
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as Chairperson, Nagar Parishad, Karauli and certain complaints were submitted against her with regard to issuance of pattas. Counsel submits that as per the proviso attach to Section 39 (1) of the Act of 2009, the State Government was supposed to conduct an enquiry through existing or retired officer not below the rank of State Level Services. Counsel submits that in the instant case, the Additional Collector, Karauli was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, but he did not conduct any enquiry himself rather delegated his powers to the subordinate Officers viz., the Tehsildar, Karauli as well as to the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Karauli and collected the report with regard to the allegations from them. Counsel submits that on the basis of the report, received from the aforesaid Officers, the order dated 05.06.2024, incorporating the said report, was sent by the Additional Collector, Karauli to the Director, Local Bodies, without any enquiry being conducted by him. Counsel submits that relying upon the aforesaid order/report dated 05.06.2024, a show cause notice under Section 39 (1) of the Act of 2009 was issued and served upon the petitioner and she was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 15.07.2024 and an order was also passed for conducting judicial enquiry against her. Counsel submits that as per the proviso attached to Section 39 (1) of the Act of 2009, it
AI
The principle of delegatus non potest delegare applies to statutory functions, not administrative actions, confirming the validity of inquiries conducted under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act.
Preliminary inquiries can be delegated for fact-finding without violating the principle of non-delegation in administrative actions under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act.
The principles of natural justice require that no individual can serve as both Enquiry Officer and complainant to ensure fair proceedings.
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....
Suspension of an elected representative must be based on sufficient grounds and objective satisfaction, not arbitrary or politically motivated actions.
Suspension of an elected public representative must adhere to procedural fairness while upholding the integrity of judicial inquiries, as misconduct undermines public trust.
Point of Law : Municipal Corporation - Suspension order - Suspension of a Chairman or a Member of a Municipal Board pending enquiry being an interim measure, suspension does not result in civil or ev....
Inquiry for misconduct can be continued under new municipal laws despite earlier proceedings, preventing double jeopardy while ensuring accountability.
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
