Order

24/02/2025

1. Heard.

2. The challenge to the order dated 06.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11135/2024, is assailed mainly on the ground that the learned Single Judge erred in law in not appreciating that the charges even if accepted on its face value, did not make out a case for invoking power of suspension conferred under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of

1994”).

3. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Lokesh Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the power of suspension could not be exercised on such allegations of failing to conduct meeting. He would submit that it is not a case where no meetings at all were held. Further submission is that while exercising power of suspension, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that in the matter of calling meeting, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti is the concerned authority who has to take initiative.

4. Lastly, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has recorded categorical finding on misconduct, whereas, at this stage, the enquiry is still pending and the appellant’s defence has not been considered in the said enquiry.

5. In so far as findings with regard to proof of conduct is concerned, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General has fairly submitted that those observations are only limited for the purposes of deciding the issue of suspension and the same do not construe a finding on misconduct, as the enquiry is still pending.

6. It is not in dispute that the power of suspension was exercised by the competent authority only upon issuance of the charge-sheet. Therefore, we do not find any statutory violation in so far as exercise of power of suspension is concerned.

7. No specific allegation of malice in fact has been alleged against the authority, who invoked and exercised the power of suspension. What is then left to be considered is whether it is a case where the exercise of discretion of the authority to place the appellant under suspension is exercised so outrageously and in the manner, which should warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the ground of patently arbitrary exercise of power being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. We find that the charges, which have been levelled against the appellant, are that the appellant was not holding regular meetings. The provisions contained in the Act and Rules, require calling the meetings at regular interval and the rule is explicit that such meetings should be called every month.

9. The factual background of the case is that the appellant was placed under suspension and the enquiry was initiated against him by the time, the appellant had remained in office for about four years after having been elected to the office.

10. It is not a case where the authorities have invoked the power of suspension while issuing charge-sheet only on the ground of alleged failure for a couple of months. The allegations as it stand are that the appellant was negligent in calling meetings for a long period and it is not a case of allegation confined only for few months.

11. On the basis of the allegations as they are taken, we are of the view that exercise of power of suspension cannot be said to be outrageous or patently arbitrary that warrants interference of the Writ Court.

12. However, we find that the learned Single Judge, while considering the legality and validity of the order of suspension, has gone little far ahead recording certain observations, which fairly raises apprehension that those observations and findings of the fact may adversely affect the case of the appellant in the matter of raising defence and even the Enquiry Officer may also be swayed by such observations.

13. We are of the view that all those observations which have the