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.

ORDER :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, this matter was heard for final disposal.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed inter alia assailing validity and propriety of the Suspension Order dated 06.08.2025 (Annx.1), Charge-sheet/Notice dated 24.08.2025 (Annx.4) as well as Enquiry Report dated 24.04.2025 (Annx.39). The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of all proceedings in pursuance of the charge-sheet/notice dated 28.04.2025 (Annx.4).

3. The facts germane to the writ petition, as narrated in the writ petition and argued on behalf of the petitioner, are as under :

3.1 The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara with effect from 30.10.2021.

3.2 In relation to an incident said to be happened on 21.04.2025, on a complaint filed on behalf of Shri Sanjay Yadav - the Block Development Officer, a F.I.R. No. 138 dated 21.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 121 (1), 132, 351(2), 351(3) & 308(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was registered at Police Station Khairthal, District Khairthal-Tijara against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner had obstructed functioning of said Public Officer, threatened the said officer of dire consequences and also hurled her sleeper on him.

3.3 Regarding said incident, a five members Committee headed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar has undertaken a preliminary enquiry and submitted its report on 24.04.2025 holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct and disgraceful conduct. The said committee's report was then forwarded to the State Government on 24.04.2025.

3.4 Based on said enquiry report, the Joint Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department has issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner, under Rule 22 (2) of the RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES of 1996 (for short “Rules of 1996”) on 28.04.2025 while framing definite charges.

3.5 While exercising the powers under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994, the respondent No. 2 issued the Order dated 28.04.2025 and the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

3.6 The suspension order dated 28.04.2025 has been challenged by the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7236/2025 (Dr. Mrs. Vinod Kumari Sangwan vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) on the ground that the order of suspension dated 28.04.2025 was passed in a routine manner and no reasons were assigned justifying the suspension of the petitioner.

3.7 During the course of arguments, the Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-department on instructions, undertaken to withdraw the said suspension order and prayed for liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. In view of the said statement, the writ petition was disposed of vide Order dated 29.07.2025 and liberty was granted.

3.8 It was stated that the respondent authorities have, though, withdrawn the earlier suspension order vide dated 06.08.2025, however, by another order dated 06.08.2025 issued on the same day, the petitioner has again been placed under suspension.

4 While challenging the order of suspension, counsel for the petitioner submitted that arbitrariness on the part of the respondents is writ large as respondents have withdrawn the earlier suspension order, however, on the same charges impugned suspension order has been passed.

4.1 Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the