SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 30-3-1993 passed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan exercising the power under proviso 2 sub-section (4) of Sec. 17 of Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1953) by the order impugned dated 30-3-1993 a finding was recorded against the petitioner who was then holding the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Rohida, Panchayat Samiti, Pindwara, Distt., Sirohi.

(2.) A charge-sheet under a memorandum dated 11-4-1983 was served upon the petitioner levelling two allegations against him to the effect that he misused his office by making allotment of a piece of land at lower rates, in favour of his family member. According to the petitioner an inquiry was conducted by the respondents behind his back and a notice Annexure-6 dated 28-2-1987 was served upon him proposed to impose a penalty of recording finding under Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. The notice dated 28-2-1987 refers to an inquiry conducted against the petitioner, however, copy of such inquiry report was not supplied to him. The State Government by the order impugned dated 30- 3-1993 recorded finding against the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two folded. First, that the copy of inquiry report was not supplied to him along with the notice Annexure-6 dated 28-2-87 and the same left him unable to defend himself effectively. The order passed by the State Government is totally a non-speaking and unreasoned order and from perusal of the same it does not reveal that what were the reasons available with respondent to hold the petitioner guilty for the allegations levelled.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the orders impugned. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In view of it I am left with no option but to accept the contention of the petitioner made in the petition. The notice Annexure-6 mentions that the petitioner was found guilty as a consequence of inquiry against him and the petitioner was directed to submit the explanation within a period of fifteen days. The petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the inquiry report, as such, it was impossible for him to submit an effective explanation to defend himself. It is well settled that any person who is to defend himself in quasi judicial proceedings must know that what is the material available against him with the authority proceeding against him. Though the notice was given to the petitioner but the same was nothing but an empty formality as in absence of copy of the inquiry report it was impossible for the petitioner to submit an effective explanation to defend himself. It amounts to denial of an opportunity to defend the delinquent. In view of it the proceedings taken place in continuation of the notice dated 28-2-87 are in violation of principles of natural justice.