BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition against the respondents preventing them from issuing the suspension order against the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, it was brought to the notice that the suspension order has been passed and the writ petition was amended. It was prayed that the suspension order (Annexure-AA) dated August 18, 1983 may be set aside.

(2.) THE petitioner has taken number of grounds in his writ petition including the ground of malafides. On behalf of the respondents, a reply to the writ petition was filed on September 26, 1983. It was originally submitted by the respondents that the petitioner performed his duties strictly within the four corners of law laid down by the Statute. However, on an application for amendment being filed, the amendment was allowed and it was submitted by the respondents that it is not admitted that the petitioner performed his duties strictly within the four corners of law laid down by the Statute. It was submitted by the respondents that the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Makrana addressed a complaint to the Collector, Nagaur, the copy of the said complaint has been produced by the respondents marked as Ex. R. l. On receipt of the complaint by the Collector, Nagaur, he forwarded it to the State Govt. and the State Govt. ordered on October 21, 1982 to the Collector, Nagaur to have a preliminary enquiry in this regard. THEreafter, the State Govt. issued a reminder in this regard on November 27, 1982. THE Collector, Nagaur directed the Deputy District Development Officer, Nagaur to submit a preliminary enquiry report in this regard. THE preliminary enquiry report was forwarded by the Collector, Nagaur to the State Govt. on November 19, 1982. On January 1, 1983, the State Govt. issued a show cause notice to the petitioner containing Memorandum of charges and allegations (Ex. R. 6 & 6 A ). THE petitioner was directed to submit his reply within a fortnight. It will not be out of place to mention here that in this very notice, it has been mentioned that the State Govt. desires that the report should be submitted at the earliest and so this notice is being issued. Shri Shish Ram Ola, Hon'ble Minister for Panchayat Raj and Gramin Vikas, Rajasthan Jaipur passed the order (Ex. R. 7) on the Office File and on the basis of the said order, the order of suspension (Ex. R 8.-Annexure-AA) was issued.

(3.) THERE may be some truth that the action of the State Govt. may be mala fide and the inference for the same can be drawn from the past history of the actions taken by the State Government against the petitioner. The possibility of the mala fide action cannot be ruled out specially in the facts and circumstances of the case where the State Government has not come with a specific reply and has failed to produce the record before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Act, 1959. The relevant part of sec. 40 of the Act reads as under : " Sec. 40. Power of Government to remove Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, (or member) (1) If in the opinion of the State Government, the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan (or member) of a Panchayat Samiti wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the orders of the State Government for the proper working of the Panchayat Samiti or abuses the powers vested in him or is found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or if any disgraceful conduct, the State Government, after giving the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan (or member), as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity for examination and after consulting the Zila Parishad in the matter and taking into consideration its opinion if received within thirty days from the date of the despatch of the communication for such consultation, may by order remove such Pradhan or Up-Pradhan (or member) as the case may be, from office : Provided that the member of a Panchayat Samiti shall be so removable from his office only if he is found to have abused his powers as such, member or to have been guilty of his conduct in the discharge of his duties, or of any disgraceful conduct as such member. " The State Government may suspend any Pradhan against whom an enquiry had been instituted under sec. 40 (1) of the aforesaid Act.