Disqualification of a Panchayati Raj member requires adherence to prescribed inquiry procedures; failing which, actions are illegal and contravene principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed assailing the validity and propriety of the order dated 03.06.2025 (Annx.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 - Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur whereby, while invoking the powers under proviso to Section 38 (1) read with (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, has declared the petitioner disqualified to contest election for next five years.

2. The writ petition is filed with following facts :-

2.1 The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Makri, Panchayat Samiti Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, and diligently and honestly discharged his duties throughout his five-year tenure. Upon completion of his tenure, by virtue of the Notification dated 13.02.2025, the petitioner was appointed as the Administrator of the said Gram Panchayat.

2.2 It was stated that, owing to political vendetta, a complaint was lodged before the Lokayukta, Government of Rajasthan, alleging irregularities in the development works undertaken by the Gram Panchayat during the petitioner’s tenure. The Office of the Lokayukta forwarded the said complaint to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, for conducting an inquiry.

2.3 In pursuance thereof, a fact-finding inquiry was conducted by a five-member committee, which, in its report dated 09.01.2024, observed certain administrative, technical, and financial irregularities in the works executed by the Gram Panchayat, Makri. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that a District-Level Inquiry be initiated.

2.4. In continuation thereof, another inquiry was conducted by a committee headed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Neem Ka Thana. The committee made observations that the petitioner, along with certain departmental officials, had committed irregularities.

2.5 The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, vide communication dated 24.05.2024, forwarded the inquiry report to the Divisional Commissioner, Sikar, recommending initiation of proceedings under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”) along with recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The committee further recommended that disciplinary action be initiated against the concerned departmental officials.

2.6 After the lapse of nearly a year, the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, vide letter dated 25.03.2025, served a charge-sheet upon the petitioner under Rule 22(2) of the RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”), framing three charges against him and directed him to submit his explanation. In response, the petitioner, vide communication dated 17.04.2025, furnished his detailed reply, categorically denying all the allegations and asserting that the requisite procedures had been duly followed in the execution of the development works after obtaining proper administrative and financial sanction from the competent authority. On 21.05.2025, the petitioner also personally appeared before the said authority and reiterated his stand, emphatically maintaining that he was not guilty of any misconduct.

2.7 It was further stated that, apart from the aforesaid proceedings, no regular inquiry as contemplated under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 was ever conducted. Nevertheless, respondent No. 2, vide impugned order dated 03.06.2025, held that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was unsatisfactory and declared the petitioner guilty of misconduct amounting to disgraceful conduct. Consequently, by invoking the powers conferred under the proviso to Section 38 (1)(b), read with (3) of the Rajas