[2026:RJ-JD:9472]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12147/2025 Ganesha Ram S/o Shri Rawata Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Mokalsar, At Present Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Mokalsar, Panchayat Samiti, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary (Ii)

(Inquiry) To The Govt., Department Of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar. 4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate Mr. Madan Beniwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG Ms. Meenal Singhvi Ms. Pratyaksha Rajpurohit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

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 on

16.05.2025.

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 corres