BALU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of the Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against him vide charge sheet dt. 13.2.14 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, in exercise of the power conferred under Sec. 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act") and Rule 22(2) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). The petitioner has also questioned legality of the charge sheet issued as aforesaid and the order dt. 15.9.14 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, appointing the Additional Chief Executive Officer as an Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges of mis -conduct levelled against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner having come to know about the pattas being issued to the ineligible persons, the same were cancelled by a resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has caused any wrongful loss to the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel submitted that relying upon the staff of Gram Panchayat and the officials of the Government, if any unintentional error is committed by the petitioner, the same does not fall within the definition of 'misconduct' requiring action against the petitioner in terms of provisions of Section 38 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has preferred a criminal miscellaneous petition before this Court with the prayer for quashing an FIR registered against him based on identical allegations, wherein a stay order has been passed by this Court in his favour and therefore, there was no justification for the State Government to proceed with the inquiry.

(2.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.