[2025:RJ-JP:50091]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12204/2025 Ramesh Panwal S/o Shri Kokla Ram, Aged About 56 Years, Residence Of Village-Bolni, Post-Teetarka, Tehsil-Kishangarh Bas, District-Alwar (Raj.) Presently Sarpanch Of Vilage Panchayat-

Chamroda, Kisangarh, Alwar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Commissioner Cum Dy Secretary Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Secretariat Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parisad, Alwar, District-Alwar

3. District Collector Alwar, District- Alwar.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.L. Pandey Ms. Jamasi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Udawat for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

10/12/2025

1. Learned counsel for both the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in the present matter stands duly covered by the judgment delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3422/2025 titled as Mahaveer Prasad Gautam vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Relevant extract of the judgment passed in the case of Mahaveer Prasad Gautam (supra) reads as under:-

“40. In the instant case, the respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions contained under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1994, as no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioners by the respondents prior to passing their orders of removal from the post of Administrator. Accordingly, this Court quashes and sets aside the impugned removal orders of the petitioners from the post of Administrator and grants liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners by exercising the powers contained under Section 38 of the Act of 1994 and Rules of 1996 framed thereunder.

41. The respondents are expected to initiate proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with Sections 38(1) and 38(4) of the Act of 1994, and conclude the same expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today and pass fresh orders, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

42. With the aforesaid observation and directions, all these petitions as well as the stay application and all pending, if any, also stand disposed of.”

3. It is also submitted that against the said judgment, Special Appeal has been filed by the State before the Division Bench which is pending, and even an interim order dated 10.09.2025 was passed therein, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition No.31575/2025 titled as Bhoor Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which was filed against the said interim order passed by the Division Bench, has stayed the effect and operation of the said interim order.

4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 is quashed and set aside with the liberty to respondents to proceed against the petitioner by exercising the power contained under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act of 1994) and Rajasthan Pnachayati Raj Rules, 1996 framed thereunder.

5. It is further expected from the respondents to initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with Sections 38(1) and 38(4) of the Act of 1994, and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from today and pass fresh orders.

6. Accordingly, with the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

7. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIKSHA MISHRA /79