ABHAY KUMAR MEENA Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the ordinary course, although the petitioner himself or counsel is allowed only to argue his case, however taking into consideration that the petitioner's brother is an MLA and is a representative of the people, he is allowed to represent case of the petitioner in absence of his counsel.

(2.) It is stated by the representative Ramesh Meena that his brother's certificates show that his name is Abhay Kumar Meena, however on account of political vengeance occasioned due to initiating certain proceedings in the Vidhan Sabha by him against the Minister, proceedings were undertaken against his brother alleging that the petitioner's actual name is Raghuveer Meena and not Abhay Kumar Meena. In this regard, an FIR was registered against the petitioner. Charge sheet has also been filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. However, cognizance has not been taken nor charges have been framed, and therefore in terms of Section 38(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994') it is submitted that trial cannot be said to have been pending against the petitioner which could be said to be of nature involving moral turpitude. However, the petitioner has been suspended. The representative prays that the order passed by the respondents be quashed and set-aside.

(3.) Mr. Vishnu Kumar Goyal, Joint Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, is present in person. Before allowing him to argue the case, he was cautioned that once the arguments are put up, he would not be allowed to withdraw and put up an excuse that Advocates are on strike. Whereafter the Joint Secretary, has proceeded to make his submissions.