REWAT DAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two writ petitions by a Sarpanch under Article 226 of the Constitution and as they raise common questions, they were heard together. They can conveniently be disposed of by on judgment.

(2.) ON 31 -8 -70 two orders were passed by the Government removing Shri Rewat Dan Sarpanch, from the Office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mathama. In writ petition No. 2027 of 1970, the order of removal is Ex. 4 and in the other writ petition it is Ex. 8. The orders were passed in consequence of the inquiries held against the Sarpanch. I may narrate the facts of the writ petition No. 2027 of 1970 for appreciating the points arising for consideration.

(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed by the State. It is denied that the order of petitioner's removal was illegal on any of the grounds taken by the petitioner. It is denied that the Government had any animus against the petitioner. It is submitted that the on Shivdan had applied for the grant of land and in that case one Jaikishen Champalal had filed an objection against the issue of Patta. Therefore, the Panchayat was not authorized to issue Patta to Shivdan without following the procedure laid down by Rule 269 of the Rules. It was submitted that on a complaint being received against the petitioner a preliminary inquiry was held under orders of the Collector and a respect of the preliminary inquiry was submitted to the Government and it was thereafter that the Government served the petitioner with the charges and the regular inquiry was held. On the basis of the inquiry report the Government gave a show cause notice to the petitioner why he be not removed, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice regarding his removal. He was afforded a number of opportunities to attend the hearing and have his say, but the petitioner never appeared before the Deputy Minister on one pretext or the other pleading illness. He never produced any medical certificate regarding his alleged illness and after each and every hearing he was informed to appear a the next hearing it is denied that the order of removal was no based on any evidence. As regarding the plea about contravention of Rule 22 of the Rules or the principles of natural justice for that matter, it is maintained that the was no violation of the relevant rules or the principles of natural justice in this behalf as according to the State, the petitioner had been afforded ample opportunity to have his say in the matter. It was further submitted that the petitioner never asked for the inquiry report and, therefore, he cannot legitimately make any grievance of the non supply of the copy of the inquiry report to him. According to the State, therefore, there was not prejudice caused to the petitioner and there is no case for any interference.