[2025:RJ-JP:51150-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1362/2025

Dr. Mrs. Vinod Kumari Sangwan W/o Shri Manvir Singh Sangwan, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Jharka, Alwar, Rajasthan-

301403.

----Appellant

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department

Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,

Jaipur.

2. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary To The

Government-Ii (Enquiry), Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of

Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. District Collector, District Khairthal- Tijara, Rajasthan.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar, District Alwar,

Rajasthan.

5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Kotkasim,

District Khairthal- Tijara Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

18/12/2025

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length.

2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer made by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition wherein the appellant

assailed her suspension order dated 06.08.2025, charge-sheet/notice dated 24.08.2025 and the Preliminary Enquiry Report dated 24.04.2025.

3. The contention made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the provisions contained under Section 38(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') could not have been exercised before suspending the writ petitioner who was holding the post of Pradhan.

4. Brief facts which have come to the notice of the learned Single Judge are that an incident occurred on 21.04.2025 where it was alleged that the appellant writ petitioner had beaten the Block Development Officer with a Slipper and the said incident was recorded as evidence resulting in the conduct of a preliminary inquiry under Rule 22(1) and the suspension of the petitioner. However, considering the provisions of the rules, when a challenge was made against the concerned suspension order, the authorities withdrew the order and again examined the case afresh after receiving the report of the preliminary enquiry dated 24.04.2025, whereafter they decided to issue a charge sheet under Section 38(1) of the Act and a notice thereto was issued on 24.08.2025 to the writ petitioner/appellant. At the same time, before considering the charges to be prima facie proved, the appellant was placed under suspension.

5. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued and has pointed out various judgments passed by this Court time and again relating to interference in suspension matters. The same were also placed before the learned Single Judge who has examined the same in detail.

6. The learned Single Judge also took into consideration the judgment passed in Sangam Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan SBCWP 6663/2025, and other connected writ petitions decided on 28.08.2025.

7. Learned counsel submits that as the Enquiry Officer has also not been appointed in the departmental proceedings initiated against her, there was no occasion to keep the petitioner under suspension, especially when the earlier suspension order has been withdrawn. Learned counsel further submits that a cross-FIR has also been registered by the appellant against the concerned BDO.

8. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is an elected person and the power under suspension ought to be exercised sparingly. We have considered the submissions.

9. We notice that earlier suspension order was passed immediately after the FIR was registered. However, taking into consideration that definite charges were required to be framed and a prima facie result has to be considered of the preliminary enquiry, the suspension order was withdrawn (more so at the instance of the Court) on 29.0