NAROTTAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, by a letter dated 5.3.2014 made a recommendation to the Municipal Board, Sheoganj to suspend the petitioner being involved in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Municipal Board in its meeting dated 21.5.2014 considered the recommendation and resolved not to suspend the petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk, but to transfer him to a post not concerned with the work of issuing No Objection Certificate for raising construction in municipal area. The resolution aforesaid was taken keeping in view the idea to utilise services of the petitioner by keeping him on a post from where he may have not been in position to impress the inquiry/investigation going against him.

(2.) THE resolution aforesaid came to be rescinded under an order dated 14.8.2014 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Local Self Government, Jaipur exercising powers under Section 327(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2009'). Subsequent thereto, the Director (Legal), Department of Local Self Government by a communication dated 19.9.2014 instructed the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sheoganj to place the appellant petitioner under suspension and also to change his headquarter. Acting upon the communication dated 19.9.2014 read with order dated 14.8.2014 the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sheoganj placed the petitioner under suspension and changed his headquarter from Municipal Board, Sheoganj to the office of the Deputy Director (Regional), Department of Local Self Government, Jodhpur. Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid as well as the order dated 14.8.2014 and communication dated 19.9.2014 the petitioner preferred a petition for writ with assertion that the powers under Section 327(2) of the Act of 2009 could have not been exercised by the State Government without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Municipal Board, Sheoganj and without examining the record relevant.

(3.) LEARNED Single Bench by order dated 14.10.2014 dismissed the writ petition by opining that "if a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act is registered against the petitioner and a resolution has been passed contrary to basic principal of law for not granting prosecution sanction then the State while exercising supervisory power can cancel such resolution passed by the Municipal Board which is contrary to law".