MUKESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG appearing for the respondents seeks time to file reply to the writ petition.

(2.) Mr. S.K. Gupta appearing for the petitioner submitted that a copy of the petition was served on the respondents on 20/7/2019 and proof thereof has been filed. He submitted that while yet reply is still awaited the petitioner is being put to the ignominy of being relieved from her charge of an elected Sarpanch in the most arbitrary manner is a mechanical exercise of statutory power.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that the petitioner an elected Sarpanch and has been suspended by resort to Sec. 38 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994') vide order dtd. 9/7/2019 for the most minor allegation of misconduct. Such heavy handed exercise of power is unconscionably disproportionate even if the allegation of supervisory negligence were to be made out. That should not be countenanced in respect of an elected representative who should continue in office unless serious misconduct is charged. He submitted that in the facts of the case the petitioner needs to be protected. Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that order of suspension dtd. 9/7/2019 is wholly perverse premised as it is on the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner in his letter of 6/9/2018 wrongly recording therein that the reply to the show cause notice to the petitioner had not been filed. Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that reply was indeed filed as required on 6/8/2018 and is annexed to the petition as Annexure-8-yet overlooked. Mr. S.K. Gupta further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner at best relate to supervisory negligence and no allegation of financial irregularity has been made. The petitioner an elected Sarpanch cannot be equated to a Government employee and be casually suspended as a matter of course. Suspension of elected representative has to come about only in extreme circumstances as held by the court in several cases. Mr. S.K. Gupta further submitted that hiatus between the recommendation dtd. 6/9/2018 and order of suspension dtd. 9/7/2019 indicates that it is not so much for necessity of preserving the purity of administration in the Gram Panchayat but a mere casual exercise of power for reasons extraneous to the purpose of conferment of the said power.