SURESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khichan at the relevant time. After conducting a preliminary -inquiry resulting in adverse findings, a charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the said charge -sheet -. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted and a notice was issued calling his explanation as to why the finding be not recorded against him under proviso to Section 1 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (in short, to be called hereinafter as 'the Act') and order recording the finding against the petitioner was passed on 3.9.1994. The only submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed by the State Government on the basis of the finding arrived at in the preliminary -inquiry under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (in short, to be called hereinafter 'the Rules of 1961') and not based on consideration of the finding recorded under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 21 of Rules of 1961. The learned Counsel has made the submission on the basis of the fact that the charge was found proved in the preliminary -inquiry under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1961 but the petitioner was exonerated in the inquiry conducted under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1961. The notice issued to the petitioner dated 27.9.1993 for the proceedings for recording the finding against him under proviso to Section 1 (4) of the Act accompanied with the finding recorded in the preliminary -inquiry wherein the charge has been found proved against the petitioner and not the report o te inquiry conducted under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1961. Further, the order passed by the State Government dated 3.9.1994 also mentions that the State Government has relied upon the inquiry -report wherein the charge against the petitioner has been found proved.

(2.) IN paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it has been alleged by the petitioner that the show -cause notice issued to the petitioner under Section 1 (4) of the Act accompanies the Inquiry Officer's report dated 30.3.1991. A copy of the inquiry -report is placed on the record as Annex. -7. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, it is further alleged that alongwith notice dated 27.9.1993 a copy of the preliminary -inquiry report has been forwarded to the petitioner and, on the basis of this report, the finding has been recorded against the petitioner. The petitioner had filed additional affidavit in this Court wherein it has been said by the petitioner that the inquiry was held against him by Shri R.C. Gupta and Shri R.C. Gupta has found that the charges levelled against him have not been proved. That, the petitioner has not been supplied with the report submitted by Shri R.C. Gupta. He filed a document which appears to be a report submitted to the Vikas Ayukta in pursuance of his order. The report indicates that the Inquiry Officer has not found the charge proved against the petitioner. The return submitted by the State does not specifically deny the fact that the petitioner was exonerated in the inquiry conducted under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1961 not the report of the Inquiry Officer was produced with the return, showing the facts to be otherwise, that the petitioner was not exonerated in the inquiry under Rule 21.

(3.) ON the basis of the facts found it is clear that the State Government while passing the order has relied upon the inquiry -report given in the preliminary -inquiry and not the inquiry -report given in the final inquiry under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 22. As the State Government has not followed the mandatory provisions of law before passing of the order of considering the inquiry -report of the inquiry held under Sub -rule (4), the order passed recording the finding against the petitioner is against the provisions of law. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3.2.1994 Annex. -9 is quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.