DEEPIKA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shahar, Panchayat Samiti Nadoti, District Karauli in the election held in the year 2015 with the 5 year tenure which ends in January 2020. A chargesheet came to be issued to her by the Divisional Officer Bharatpur on 10.8.2018 under Rule 22 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter 'Rules of 1996') alleging that she had committed misconduct in discharge of her duties. The petitioner submitted her reply to the chargesheet on 5.9.2018 and the matter rested there. Neither an Inquiry Officer was appointed nor the petitioner suspended by resort to Section 38 (4) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994').

(2.) Eight months of the issue of chargesheet vide order dated 9.7.2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner the petitioner was suspended. Hence this petition.

(3.) Mr.S.K. Gupta appearing for the petitioner submitted that aside of the petitioner and three officers of the State Government i.e. Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Shahar-one Damodar Lal Sharma, Assistant Engineer of Panchayat Samiti Nadoti-one Vikram Singh Meena and Junior Engineer-Hariom Sharma are alleged by the respondents to have been involved in the alleged misconduct. He submitted that in fact vide notice dated 25.7.2018 under the hand of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli it was recorded that in respect of the work allegedly got done for a sum of Rs.2,49,997/- by the Gram Panchayat, Shahar measurement thereof had indicated that the work only for an amount of Rs.1,54,628/- was executed consequent to which a sum of Rs.95,369/- was apparently overpaid. It was thus proportionably recoverable from each of the four purportedly responsible for the over payment. The petitioner alongwith the three others aforesaid were required to deposit a sum of Rs.23,933/- each with the Panchayat Samiti Nadoti. Mr.S.K. Gupta submitted that the notice dated 25.7.2018 makes it evident that aside of the petitioner the elected Sarpanch of the three others allegedly responsible two were engineers with technical knowledge on issues of civil work done and measurement thereof. Yet the petitioner an elected representative alone has been belatedly singled out and suspended on 9.7.2019 even while the others officers responsible for the actual constructions and measurements thereof for payment were not suspended by resort to Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1958')- as relevant to them. Mr.S.K. Gupta submitted that oddity and the arbitrariness of the Government's action against the petitioner tantamounting to the abuse of its power under Section 38 (4) of the Act of 1994 is thus loud and clear. Mr.S.K. Gupta submitted that the petitioner is a non-technical who can at worst can be charged for supervisory negligence. No allegation of financial impropriety has been levelled against him. Yet despite being an elected representative the petitioner has been unfairly suspended in a mechanical manner--which he could not be.