JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 4. 11. 03 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order of suspension dtd. 14. 10. 2003 (Annex. P/1) passed by the respondent No. 1 (State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur) under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) be quashed and set aside as on that date no criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mozpura, Panchayat Samiti, Asind in the general elections held in January, 2000. ii) Further case of the petitioner is that due to political rivalry, a report was lodged against the petitioner in the Police Station Badnaur, Dist. Bhilwara and the basis of that report, a FIR (Annex. R/5) was registered for offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I. P. C. against the petitioner and some other persons and later on challan was filed against the petitioner and some other persons for the aforesaid offences in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Asind. ii) Further case of the petitioner is that after filing of the challan against him, impugned order dtd. 14. 10. 2003 (Annex. P/1) was passed by the respondent No. 1 (State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur) and in that order dtd. 14. 10. 2003 (Annex. P/1) it has been mentioned that since challan has been filed against the petitioner therefore, in exercise of power under Section 38 (4) of the Act of 1994, the petitioner was placed under suspension and this order dtd. 14. 10. 2003 (Annex. P/1) has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) FROM the entire reading of Section 38 (4) of the Act of 1994, it is clear that the powers of suspension are to be exercised if (i) an enquiry has been initiated under sub-section (1) against the Sarpanch or (ii) if criminal proceedings in regard to an offence involving moral turpitude is pending trial in a court of law. In the present case impugned order dtd. 14. 10. 2003 (Annex. P/1) was passed by the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department (respondent No. 1) not on the ground that an enquiry has been initiated under sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Act of 1994, but the impugned order dtd. 14. 10. 2003 (Annex. P/1) was passed on the ground that since criminal proceedings were pending trial against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Asind, therefore, the petitioner was suspended. In the impugned order dtd. 14. 10. 2003 (Annex. P/1) passed by the respondent No. 1 (State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department), it was clearly mentioned that since challan was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, therefore, he was put under suspension.