CHANDER PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of charges dated 16-4-99 (Annex. 1) and suspension order dated 16-4-99 (Annex. 5) relating to the petitioner, a duly elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Tinwari, district Jodhpur in January, 1995. Petitioner received the charge-sheet dated 16-4-99 and the suspension order of the same date contained in Annexures 1 and 5 respectively on certain charges of irregularities/illegalities and petitioner was called upon to submit his reply on or before 30-4-99 as to why inquiry be not conducted against him in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1996). In response to the said notice, instead of submitting a reply, petitioner demanded the statement of allegations asserting that the same had not been supplied to him along with the charges and in absence of statement of allegations, it was not possible for him to submit written statement. Petitioner also requested for some more time. Respondents granted him 15 days further time to submit his written statement but petitioner contends that the statement of allegations has not been supplied to him till now. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred the writ petition on 4th May, 99 for quashing of the charges as well as the suspension order. This Court issued notice for final hearing to the respondents as no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, the government vide order dated 4-6-99 appointed an inquiry officer to hold and conclude the enquiry in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1996.

(3.) Shri J. P. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has given up the case against the impugned charges dated 16-4-99 (Annex. 1) and restricted his submissions only for quashing of suspension order dated 16-4-99 (Annex. 5). The relevant provisions of law involved in this case are quoted hereunder :-