ORDER

Reserved on:- 17/02/2026

Pronounced on:- 13/03/2026

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. It assails the validity of the order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure-03) whereby the petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mokalsar, Panchayat Samiti Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

2. Facts as narrated in writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mokalsar, Panchayat Samiti Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar on 04.10.2020. A complaint was lodged by one Ganesha Ram before the Anti- Corruption Bureau alleging that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- for sanctioning a residential house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. Acting on the complaint, the ACB registered FIR No.129/2025 dated 26.05.2025 at Central Police Station (ACB), Jaipur for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case and was subsequently granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court, ACB Cases, Sri Ganganagar.

3. According to the petitioner, the complainant hatched a conspiracy with certain opponents and placed an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the drawer of the petitioner’s office table and thus falsely implicated him. It is further asserted in the writ petition that the same amount of money was allegedly owed by the complainant to the petitioner and that no demand or acceptance of bribe was made by him. It is further stated in the writ petition that the name of Govind Ram, father of the complainant, had already been included in the list of eligible beneficiaries prepared by the Gram Vikas Adhikari on 12.05.2025, which was forwarded to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suratgarh on16.05.2025.

4. According to the petitioner, once the list was forwarded to the Panchayat Samiti, the Gram Panchayat had no authority either to sanction or refuse the claim under the scheme, and therefore no work relating to the complainant was pending with the petitioner. Subsequently, by order dated 16.06.2025, the respondent Additional Commissioner & Deputy Secretary (II) suspended the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1994’ only).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994 empowers the State Government to suspend a member or chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution only in two circumstances: (i) where an enquiry under Section 38(1) has been initiated, or (ii) where criminal proceedings relating to an offence involving moral turpitude are pending trial before a court of law. However, the impugned order does not disclose under which of the aforesaid contingencies the petitioner has been suspended. The order merely states that the petitioner accepted a bribe of Rs.10,000/- and therefore is guilty of misconduct or disgraceful conduct, which language corresponds to Section 38(1)(b) dealing with removal, and not with suspension under Section 38(4).

6. Learned counsel further submitted that no enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1994, nor has any charge been framed or served upon him as contemplated under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1996’ only), which prescribes the procedure for conducting an enquiry. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that Rule 22 mandates that before taking action under Section 38, the State Government may direct the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit a report. Thereafter, definite charges are required to be framed and communicated to the concerned office bearer. In the present case, neither any preliminary enquiry was conducted nor any charge-sheet was served upon him.

7