JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter was heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner was elected as 'Sarpanch' of Gram Panchayat, Lisadia of Panchayat Samiti Sri Madhopur, District Sikar. He was served with the charge sheet, to take action as per Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994'). In the charge sheet, it was alleged that he raised construction of Panchayat Building in a land recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Naid', thus proper place was not selected and it may cause damage to the record and building. Respondents conducted enquiry as per the Rule 22 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the rules of 1996'). The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted enquiry report vides Annex. 11 to the writ petition dated 22.04.2008, holding charges as not proved. After recording said finding in the enquiry, it seems that matter travelled to other government authorities and in that respect, firstly order was passed on 20th October 2008 vide Annex. 15. In the aforesaid order, it has been recorded that charge against the petitioner is found to be proved therefore, before passing any order, petitioner should be given opportunity of hearing in view of the Rule 22(7) of the Rules of 1996. The respondent Divisional Commissioner thereafter passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2009 (Annex. 16) after calling for the report from Collector. Vide impugned order, petitioner is declared to be disqualified to hold the post of 'Sarpanch' and accordingly, a direction..given to the petitioner for handing over the charge to 'Up -Sarpanch/Wardpanch.'

(3.) LEARNED Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that the order dated 09.02.2009 (Annex. 16) is perfectly legal inasmuch as the petitioner is guilty of raising construction in a land, which is shown to be 'Gair Mumkin Nadi'. In view of the Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, no construction can be made in such land, thus the petitioner has committed misconduct and taking note of this aspect, the Divisional Commissioner has rightly passed the order.