AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhunas district Bhilwara since December, 1981. In this writ petition, he prays for quashing the order Ex. 5 dated June 17, 1986 and Ex. 8 dated August 28, 1986 by which inquiry was initiated against him and he was put under suspension by the State Government.

(2.) THE impugned orders were challenged on two grounds (1): there is no material to initiate an inquiry against him and (2) the Minister (respondent No. 2), who passed these orders, had a bias against him because the petitioner had failed to oblige him in respect of the appointment of his son and brother in the Gangapur Co -operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gangapur, which is a public undertaking establishment.

(3.) COMING to the ground No. 2, it was stated by the petitioner that at the relevant time, he was one of the Directors of the Mills and was also a Member of the Selection Committee of the said Mills. Respondent No. 2 approached him and sought the petitioners's help for the appointments of his son and brother in the aforesaid mills. It was further stated in the writ petition that as they had no requisite qualifications for the posts, he failed to oblige respondent No. 2. It was further stated that when the election of Sarpanch took place, respondent No. 2 approached the petitioner and asked him to support his (respondent No, 2) candidate Shanker Lal. The petitioner did not oblige, him and contested the election, in which he came out successfully. It was alleged that on account of these two reasons, respondent No. 2, who was holding the port -folio of Panchayat Rajya and Community Development, passed the impugned order clause 8 putting him under suspension. Allegation No. 1 relating to appointment is a serious one and in case there is some basis to show its existence the petitioner has a good case for admission. Unfortunately, in his earlier affidavit Annexure (R. 1) which he filed on July 4, 1985 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1051/1985 (Rampal Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) at Jaipur Bench, he stated just the contrary things, in Annexure R 1, he stated that respondent No. 2 brought no pressure on him and other Members of the Selection Committee directly or indirectly for recruitment or employment of any of his relatives in the mills (vide para 5 of affidavit Annexure R. 1). The petitioner attempts to avoid his affidavit R. 1 on the ground that he filed it at the instance of respondent No. 2. He did not disclose this fact in the writ petition. He concealed that fact. He came out with this allegation for avoiding the affidavit R 1 when Annexure R 1 was filed by respondents in this writ petition. The petitioner's case of mala -fidesd, thus, crumbles down on account of his contrary allegations made by him in his earlier affidavit Annx. R 1. Apart from that, respondent No 2 has filed his affidavit denying all the averments of malafides made against him by the petitioner. There is, thus, no material on record to show the malafides on the part of respondent No. 2, even at a far distant horizon. The petitioner stands contradicted by his own earlier affidavit. More over, there is the affidavit of respondent No. 2 controverting the allegations of malafides. It is also pertinent to note that in the writ petition the particulars of malafides as to when and where respondent No. 2 approached the petitioner to seek his help for the appointment of his son and brother have not bear mentioned. The general allegation is there without any particulars.