THANARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THANARAM, Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Luni, has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan and the Assistant Secretary (Inquiries), Block Development and Panchayat Department of the Government of Rajasthan, praying that the order passed by the State Government on 15th of March, 1972 suspending the petitioner from the office of Pradhan be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order mainly on the ground that Shri Parasram Maderna, who was the Minister incharge, has passed the impugned order with a mala fide intention as the petitioner was suspected by him of having opposed during the general election the official candidate of the Congress from the Luni Assembly Constituency and, therefore, to wreak vengeance the impugned order was passed by the Minister on the eve of his laying down the office of Minister holding the charge of the Panchayat Department.

(3.) IT maybe mentioned here that one Shri Sultan Singh, who was incharge of the investigation, informed the petitioner that the charges against him were found baseless and that the final report had been submitted in the court of Session, but Sultan Singh, who was then in service, filed an affidavit stating that he never informed the petitioner about the final report having been filed by the Anti-Corruption Department. However, later on Sultan Singh was made to retire prematurely and then he filed an affidavit in this Court on 7th February 1973 making certain wild allegations against Shri Parasram Maderna that he met Shri Maderna on 26th of August, 1971, at the Circuit House, Jodhpur, where Shri Maderna first rebuked him and then made enquiries about the progress in Thanaram's case to which the deponent (Sultan Singh) said that the investigation was going on and the result thereof shall be conveyed to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police who is proper authority to decide the matter. In this affidavit Shri Sultan Singh has also levelled a charge that he was compulsorily retired under rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules on 2nd of February, 1973, because he did not toe the line of the Minister to implicate Shri Thanaram, but these allegations which have been controverted by Shri Parasram Maderna by his affidavit dated 12th of March, 1973, seem to be quite baseless and unfounded. Shri Maderna in his affidavit of 12th March, 1973, has stated that on 26th of August, 1971, he was at Delhi attending a conference which was convened on 22nd of August, 1971 and continued upto 27th of August, 1971. According to him, he left Delhi on 27th of August, 1971, at 3 p.m. In support of this averment, two certificates have been filed by Shri Maderna, one of the Chief Superintendent of the Motor Garage stating that from 22nd of August, 1971 to 27th of August, 1971, a vehicle No. RRL 31 was detailed in the duty of Shri Parasram Maderna which took him to Delhi with Shri Durgasingh driver. The copy of the T. A. bill filed along with this affidavit also shows that Shri Maderna was at Delhi on 26th of August, 1971 and, therefore, the averment made by Shri Sultan Singh that he met Shri Maderna at the Circuit house, Jodhpur, on 26th of August, 1971, appears to be a piece of imagination. In this view of the matter, I am not prepared to place any reliance on the affidavit of Shri Sultan Singh by which a suggestion has been made by the petitioner that Shri Parasram Maderna was interested in getting him involved in the criminal charges which were being investigated against him by the Anti-Corruption Department by exercising his influence as a Minister.