CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23-6-1999 dismissing the writ petition seeking direction to quash article of charges dated 16-4-1999 and the order of suspension of the same date.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Tinwari, District Jodhpur, in the year 1995. The Ward Panchas of the said Gram Panchayat viz. S/Shri Nemichand Parihar, Ramswaroop Soni and others lodged the complaint dated 1-5-1998 before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur against the conduct of the petitioner. Another complaint was filed by the Ward Panchas S/Shri Ramswaroop and Ganesh Ram on 2-5-1998. Petitioner also filed a complaint on 4-5-1998. On receipt of the said complaints, the Chief Executive Officer by order dated 11-5-1998 directed Shri Chhotu Singh, Panchayat Extension Officer, to enquire into the complaints. The Extension Officer summoned the entire record of the Gram Panchayat and recorded the statements of various persons including the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and submitted number of documents in his defence and cross-examined the witnesses.The Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report to the Chief Executive Officer. He found the petitioner prima facie guilty of serious financial irregularities causing, immense loss to the tune of lacs of rupees to the Gram Panchayat. The Chief Executive Officer after considering the report under Communication dated 12-4-1999 recommended the State Government to initiate the process for removal and suspension of the petitioner. The State Government on receipt of letter and report of the preliminary enquiry, formed an opinion that action under sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj. Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.', is necessary and, therefore, framed definite charges and communicated the same to petitioner under memo dated 16-4-1999 (Annexure 1). The petitioner was asked to submit his reply on or before 30th April, 1999. On the same day, by order dated 16-4-1999 (Annexure 5), he was put under suspension.

(3.) It appears from the order of the learned single Judge that petitioner gave up the case against the order dated 16-4-1999 (Annexure 1) i.e. framing of charges and he restricted his submissions only for quashing the suspension order dated 16-4-1999 (Annexure 5). Dealing with the contention of the petitioner that the Executive Officer had no jurisdiction to hold a preliminary enquiry as there is no order delegating any authority to him to hold a preliminary enquiry, the learned single Judge expressed that it was not necessary to go into the question for the reason that even if the Chief Executive Officer under Rule 336 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', was not competent to hold preliminary enquiry, the report/documents filed by him, would fall in the category of having information 'otherwise'. The learned single Judge relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhura Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in (1988) 1 Raj LR 945, held that in a matter of suspension as an interim measure considering the administrative exigency, the requirement to follow the principles of natural justice is not attracted. On facts, the learned Judge held that before passing the order of suspension, it cannot be said that the State Government had not followed the procedure or not acted in a manner as provided under the statutory provisions. In view of the finding, the learned single Judge rejected the writ petition, however, directed the respondents to conclude the enquiry and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of the order.