MAGH RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Maghraj, who was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Meetari. By it he challenges the validity of the Government order dated 28.7.66, whereby under the provisions of Section 17(4 -A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), certain findings were recorded against him in respect of certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him when he was a Sarpanch of the Panchayat during its previous tenure in the year 1961. He also questions the validity of a consequential order passed by the Government on 28.10.1966, restraining him from functioning as a Sarpanch.

(2.) THE relevant facts on which the writ petition is founded are briefly these. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat first in the year 1961, and after the term of the Panchayat came to an end, he was again elected in the year 1965 as a Sarpanch. While he was working as a Sarpanch second time, he was faced with an enquiry under Section 17(4) of the Act. He was served with a charge -sheet on 10.11.1965. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges and then an enquiry was held against him and on 28 -7 -66, an order was passed, under the proviso to Sub -section 4 of Section 17 of the Act, that the petitioner would be disqualified to hold any office under the Act for the next three years. Subsequently, on the basis of that finding an order was passed against him whereby he was forbidden to function as a Sarpanch and the Government declared his seat vacant. It was contended by the petitioner in the first instance that the finding recorded against him on 28 -7 -66 was illegal. In the second place, it was contended that the finding could not result in debarring or disqualifying him from holding the present office as Sarpanch, though it might disqualify the petitioner from seeking election at a future election for the period of three years for which the finding would operate against him. The writ petition was opposed by the State of Rajasthan. During the pendency of this writ petition, one Chhunilal and Rameshwarlal, on whose complaints, the enquiry was instituted against the petitioner, applied for hearing impleaded as respondents. It was felt by the Court that these persons were not necessary parties to the case. However, for assisting the Court for a proper determination of the controversy raised, their learned Counsel Shri J.S. Rastogi was also heard.

(3.) SHRI Rastogi has submitted that this view requires reconsideration. He submits that the provisions of Section 11(j) imposes a disqualification on such a person against whom a finding has been given for holding the office of a Panch, Sarpanch or Up -Sarpanch, and as such, a disqualification is incurred after election of such a person, action can be taken against him under Sub -section (1) of Section 17 of the Act, For appreciating the argument of Mr. Rastogi it may be convenient to read the relevant provisions embodying the portions which are material. Section 11 is like this: