HARIRAM CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Hariram Chaudhary Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Dadia under Panchayat Samiti, Arain, District Ajmer has filed this writ petition challenging the order of suspension dt. January 12, 1979. According to the order of suspension, petitioner has been convicted under Section 366 and Section 343 I.P.C. and sentenced to the various tedms of imprisonment and fine. This results in disqualification under Section 11(g) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to be as the Act, 1953). Since the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act 1953 for declaring his seat vacant are pending against him, he has been placed under suspension pending completion of these proceedings.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that against the judgment of conviction an appeal was filed before the High Court and the High Court confirmed the conviction. Further, it is alleged that judgment of the High Court is sub judice before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, where the sentence awarded against the petitioner has been suspended. On this premises, it is argued that as per the dictum of law laid down in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 51/1976, Gopal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (decided on December 5, 1978), since against the judgment of conviction, appeal is pending before the Appellate Court, person or civil servant against whom sentence has been passed can not be suspended nor he can be removed from service. It was argued that under Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nayaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, suspension order of a Panch, Sarpanch, Upsarpanch cannot be passed till the enquiry is pending and since no inquiry in the instant case, is pending, suspension cannot be ordered.

(3.) IN the instant case, no order of removal has been passed so far by the Court. Whether the principles laid down in Gopal Singh's case would apply to the case of a Sarpanch, Panch, Upsarpanch in matters of disqualification under Section 11(g) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 on account of conviction during the pendency of the appeal, need not be decided in the instant case. Even on the assumption that the principles laid down in Gopal Singh's case are applicable, since no order of removal has been passed against the petitioner so far, writ petition is pre -mature.