PRAKASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Prakash Kumar, being the returned Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Punasa, Panchayat Samiti Bheenmal, District Jalore, has approached this court for assailing the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the respondent Joint Secretary and Deputy Commissioner (Enquiry), Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension while exercising powers UNDER Section 38 of the Panchayati Raj Act. For the sake of reference, the substratum of the order dated 18.09.2018 is reproduced hereinbelow : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(2.) The principal contention of Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Nishant Bora, for assailing the impugned order was that the trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 224, 225, 427 and 149 IPC, none of which falls within the category of an offence involving moral turpitude. He, thus urges that as the competent court has framed charge against the petitioner for any offence involving moral turpitude, the competent authority wrongly exercised jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 38 of the Panchayati Raj Act for placing the petitioner under suspension and that the impugned order has no foundation in eyes of law.

(3.) He relied upon the notification/statutory order issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Municipalities Act, wherein certain offences have been classified as being offences involving moral turpitude. He, thus, urges that none of the offences attributed to the petitioner in the order framing charge is covered by the offences listed in the said notification, apparently, the embargo against holding the post of Sarpanch as provided by Section 38 of the Act does operate against the petitioner.