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.

ORDER :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present three writ petitions arise out of the same cause of action and hence, were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The facts are that Mr. Hemendra Jat @ Hemraj Jat (petitioner in Writ Petition No.11717/2023, respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.18334/2023 and respondent No.8 in Writ Petition No.10429/2024)[hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’] was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mavli, District Udaipur in the year 2020. In the year 2022, a complaint by one Shakeel Ahmed was filed against him, complaining of a demand of bribe for issuance of a patta in his name. On the said complaint, trap proceeding by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Udaipur was undertaken and FIR No.164/2022 was registered against him for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act of 1988’). The respondent was arrested qua the said FIR and was released on bail on 11.05.2022. Because of the criminal case been registered against the respondent, he was suspended vide order dated 23.05.2022 and on the very next date, i.e. 24.05.2022, the charge of Sarpanch was handed over to Up-Sarpanch Bhupendra Singh Gurjar (petitioner in Writ Petitions No.18334/2023, 10429/2024 and respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.11717/2023)[hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’].

3. Respondent Mr. Hemendra Jat preferred a Writ Petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7964/2022) against the order dated 23.05.2022 whereby he was suspended. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.05.2023 with the following directions:

“13. Having regard to allegation involved, instead of interfering in the case and pronouncing upon the other arguments advanced by Mr. Kotwani, with the consent of both the counsel, instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent – State to appoint enquiry officer, if not appointed till today, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from today with a corresponding direction to the enquiry officer to conclude the enquiry by 30.07.2023.

14. The petitioner will be given due opportunity of hearing in accordance with law and he shall extend his full cooperation for ensuring that the enquiry is completed within the above time frame.

15. In case the enquiry officer does not complete the enquiry by 30.07.2023, without there being a deliberate attempt to protract the proceedings by the petitioner, then, the suspension order dated 23.05.2022 shall stand revoked and petitioner’s position as Sarpanch shall be restored. The enquiry in question shall nevertheless continue and in the period interregnum the petitioner shall not take any decision unilaterally on any financial matter until he is exonerated.

16. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.”

4. In pursuance to the order dated 30.05.2023, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the State Department who completed the enquiry within the stipulated period and submitted the Enquiry Report dated 03.07.2023 to the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur. In pursuance to the said Enquiry Report, vide his order dated 12.07.2023, the Divisional Commissioner, while exercising his powers under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’) proceeded on to hold the respondent gui