GANESHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Ganesha Ram S/o Khinva Ram, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat - Parewadi, Kuchaman City, Nagaur, has approached this Court by way of present writ petition for quashing the suspension order Annex.2 dated 05.09.2013, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension under Section 38 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'Act of 1994').

(2.) THE allegation against the petitioner as given in impugned order is that the petitioner, Ganesha Ram while acting as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Parewadi, has demanded and taken the bribe of Rs.25,000/ - from the complainant, Sh. Om Prakash Jat, for which an FIR No.342/2013 has been registered by the Anti - Corruption Bureau against him on 31.07.2013 u/s 7, 13 (1) (d)/ 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is pending investigation with the concerned investigating agency. The petitioner was also arrested.

(3.) MR . Sudheer Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension of the Sarpanch cannot be made unless the criminal trial can be said to be pending in the court of law as per the provisions of sub -section (4) of Section 38 of the Act of 1994. He also submitted that an opportunity of hearing of one month is required to be given as per Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996, which deals with 'Procedure of Enquiry', before taking any action under sub - section (1) of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 for removal from the post of Sarpanch and, therefore, without giving an opportunity of hearing, as required by Rule 22, the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension. He relied upon a decision of coordinate bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Hansraj Gujar Vs. State of Rajatshan & Ors. (SBCWP No.12698/2012, decided on 13.02.2013) in which it has been held that where the State Government relying upon only criminal proceedings in regard to an offence involving moral turpitude unless the said trial is pending in a competent court of law i.e. where the Challan has been filed, the trial cannot be said have been commenced before that and, therefore, the suspension order cannot be passed. He also relied upon an interim order dated 25.02.2013 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in SBCWP No.1925/2013 -Chunnilal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., staying the operation of suspension order dated 13.02.2013 in that case. The petitioner has sought following relief(s) in the writ petition: -