HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13322/2020

Pankaj Mittal Son Of Shri Shivcharan Lal Mittal, Aged About 42

Years, R/o Shahabad District Baran Sarpanch (U/s) Village

Panchayat Shahabad, Panchayat Samiti Shahabad District Baran.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary And

Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat

Jaipur.

2.

Additional Commissioner And Joint Secretary (Ii), Rural

Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Baran.

3.

Zila Parishad Baran, Through Its Chief Executive Officer,

Baran.

4.

Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Shahabad, District

Baran.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Gajanand Mishra Manav, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment / Order

Reserved on 07/09/2021

Pronounced on 22/09/2021

1.

The matter came up for orders on the second stay

application, however, looking to the nature of controversy, the writ

petition itself was heard finally on merits.

2.

By way of instant writ petition, petitioner has averred that he

was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shahabad,

Panchayat Samiti Shahabad, District Baran and an FIR under the

(2 of 9)

[CW-13322/2020]

Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018 was

registered against the petitioner by the Anti Corruption Bureau,

Rajasthan on the basis of a complaint filed by one Mr. Manoj Mali

and the Anti Corruption Bureau caught the petitioner red-handed

with a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the trap proceedings conducted on

10/07/2020. The Assistant Secretary (Enquiry), Rural

Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of

Rajasthanissued a notice to the petitioner on 18/09/2020 calling

the petitioner to be present for personal hearing. It is submitted

that before providing opportunity of personal hearing, the

petitioner was suspended vide order dated 09/10/2020 under

Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. By

another letter dated 09/10/2020, the petitioner was issued show

cause notice as to why enquiry be not commenced against him

under Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.

Vide another order dated 14/10/2020, the charge of the post of

Sarpanch was handed over to Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat

Shahabad. The petitioner, therefore, has preferred this writ

petition assailing the orders dated 09/10/2020 and 14/10/2020.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

provisions of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

do not allow suspension of Chairperson of a Panchyati Raj

Institution unless an enquiry has been initiated against him under

sub-Section 1 of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act,

1994 or against whom criminal proceedings with regard to the

offence involving moral turpitude is pending trial in a competent

court of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry

(3 of 9)

[CW-13322/2020]

under Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996

cannot be said to have been initiated and therefore, the

suspension is illegal and unjustified. It is further submitted that

the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 27/11/2020 but

the petitioner has been suspended before personal hearing was

provided to him. It is stated that the criminal proceedings

registered against the petitioner are politically motivated and the

complainant lodged a false FIR. As per Rule 22 of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, before taking action under Section

38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the State

Government was required to conduct preliminary enquiry and after

completion of preliminary enquiry, the report would be sent to the

State Government and if it finds sufficient grounds available to

initiate enquiry, the charge-s