VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

(2.) Learned counsel representing the parties stated that the controversy involved in the case at hand is squarely covered by the judgment dtd. 8/2/2016 rendered by a Single Bench in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.l 3949/2015 (Har Govind Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), wherein this court examined import of Sec. 111 of the Panchayati Raj Act and held that liability against the persons classified under the said provision holding the post of Sarpanch, Gram Sevak, Ex officio Secretary or the Technical Officer in the various Gram Panchayats can only be imposed in accordance with the procedure provided in the said Sec. . This court observed at para No.14 of the said judgment as below :-

(3.) In view of the admitted position that the petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of the Panchayat and as the recovery order dtd. 20/11/2018 (Annex.P/3) has been passed without holding any enquiry in terms of the Sec. 111 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the said order cannot stand to scrutiny and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are given liberty to hold the appropriate enquiry in terms of Sec. 111 of the Act to fix the liability of the petitioner as per law. The requisite exercise in this regard shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of submission of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed in these terms.