TULSI RAM KUSHWAH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application No.1/2024 filed by the applicant-Shri Dushyant Kumar Baghel is disposed of in terms that he is permitted to intervene in the matter as agreed and requested by the learned Senior Counsels for the applicant and the petitioner. Under challenge in the writ petition is the order dtd. 1/10/2024 passed by the State Government whereby, the petitioner-an elected Chairperson, Panchayat Samiti, Saipau, District Dholpur has been placed under suspension in exercise of power under Sec. 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

(2.) Assailing the order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits, inter alia, that before placing him under suspension in a routine manner only for the reason of initiation of an enquiry, no satisfaction was recorded that the suspension is imperative to conduct a smooth enquiry which would reasonably be impracticable if this course is not adopted which is the condition precedent. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon various precedential law including following citations:-

(3.) He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dtd. 1/10/2024 be quashed and set aside. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that since, the allegations against the petitioner pertain to financial irregularities, no satisfaction, as laid down in the precedential law relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, was required to be recorded. He further submits that since, there is no violation of statutory provision and the chargesheet is not under challenge, no interference is warranted. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel for the intervenor, adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that recording of any satisfaction before placing an elected representative is not warranted under the statutory scheme of the Act.