VINOD JEPH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed assailing the validity and propriety of the order dtd. 3/6/2025 (Annx.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 - Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur whereby, while invoking the powers under proviso to Sec. 38(1) read with Sec. 38(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, has declared the petitioner disqualified to contest election for next five years.

(2.) The writ petition is filed with following facts :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order for either removal or declaring a member of Panchayati Raj Institution as guilty of misconduct under Sec. 38(1) of the Act of 1994 can only be passed after undertaking detailed enquiry as mandated under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996. The order under Sec. 38(3) of the Act of 1994 is only a consequence of the order so passed under Sec. 38(1) of the Act of 1994 and for which, the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 is mandatory pre-requisite. However, in the present case, the order impugned has been passed in clear defiance of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 38 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996. Further, the impugned order, being stigmatic in nature, could not have been lawfully passed without affording the petitioner to participate in a detailed enquiry.