HANSRAJ GUJAR Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have placed the petitioner under suspension by invoking Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 according to which the State Government may suspend any member including a chairperson or a deputy chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution against whom an enquiry has been initiated under sub-section (1) or against whom any criminal proceedings in regard to an offence involving moral turpitude is pending trial in a court of law.

(2.) Shri S.K. Singodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he as a Sarpanch attested a mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed, but there was an inter se dispute between the brothers and one brother lodged an FIR against the petitioner, in which petitioner was falsely implicated as an accused and was arrested but so far charges have not been framed and, therefore, the trial has not been commenced. Learned counsel relied on the judgements of this Court in Banshidhar Saini vs. State of Rajasthan,1988 1 WLN 270, Narayan Lal Birla vs. State & Ors.,1997 3 WLC(Raj) 766, Shyam Sunder vs. State & Ors.,2003 1 WLN 524 and Bhaiya Ram & Ors. vs. State & Ors.,2000 2 WLN 377.

(3.) Shri L.N. Boss, learned Deputy Government counsel opposed the writ petition and submits that the petitioner alone could not attest the mutation as this could be done only by a resolution of Gram Panchayat. Besides, the words "pending trial", cannot be narrowly construed. Once challan has been filed, the trial is taken to have been commenced and the petitioner has rightly been placed under suspension.