Smt. Ramkanya Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6144 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5494/2022

Smt. Ramkanya Gurjar W/o Shri Prahlad Gurjar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Talai Mohalla, District Pratapgarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director-Cum-Special Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Pratapgarh.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pratapgarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Arora

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG, Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Bhagat Dadhich

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

26/04/2022

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG has submitted that

he has filed reply to the writ petition today itself.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being

aggrieved with the order dated 4.4.2022 (Annex.21)

whereby, the Director, Local Self Department, Jaipur has

suspended the petitioner from the post of Chairman,

(2 of 4) [CW-5494/2022]

Municipal Board, Pratapgarh while exercising powers

under Section 39(6) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act,

2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009').

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the petitioner has been suspended on account of

initiation of enquiry against her under Section 39 of the

Act of 2009. It is submitted that the charges framed by

the respondent-Department against the petitioner are

without any basis. It is argued that from a bare reading

of the charge-sheet issued by the respondent-

Department, it is clear that it has nowhere speaks about

any misdeed or illegal act done by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the impugned suspension order has been passed by the

respondents under political pressure, particularly on

account of a local MLA, who belongs to the ruling party. It

is also submitted that looking into the charges framed

against the petitioner, it is clear that she is not in a

position to influence the enquiry in any manner. Learned

counsel for the petitioner, thus, prayed that the impugned

suspension order passed by the respondent - Local Self

Department may be stayed till pendency of the writ

petition.

(3 of 4) [CW-5494/2022]

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG has opposed the

prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and

argued that no case for staying the impugned order of

suspension is made out as the respondents have passed

the same strictly in accordance with law.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

The respondent - Department vide order dated

14.3.2022 has framed as many as four charges against

the petitioner and sought her explanation.

The charge Nos.1 and 2 are in relation to

appointment of petitioner's husband as her Personal

Assistant. It is noticed that the petitioner's husband was

appointed as Personal Assistant of the petitioner vide

order dated 19.3.2021, but the said order was withdrawn

by the petitioner herself vide order dated 25.3.2021.

So far as charge No.3 is concerned, it is regarding

action of the petitioner of relieving Commissioner of the

Municipal Board without any authority. The said action of

the petitioner relates to 25.8.2021, however, with the

direction of the State Government, the said person, to

whom the petitioner had ordered to relieve, is working as

the Commissioner, Municipal Board, Pratapgarh till date.

(4 of 4) [CW-5494/2022]

So far as the charge No.4 is concerned, it relates to

encroachments made by husband of the petitioner and

there is no mention to the effect that the petitioner had

encroached over any government land or facilitated her

husband in making such encroachments. Even the date of

alleged encroachment has not been mentioned.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and

circumstances of the case, prima facie, I am of the

opinion that looking to the charges framed by the

respondents against the petitioner, there is little

possibility that the petitioner may influence the enquiry

under Section 39 of the Act of 2009 while being Chairman

of the Municipal Board, Pratapgarh.

In such circumstances, the effect and operation of

the impugned order dated 4.4.2022 (Annex.21) shall

remain stayed.

List the matter after two weeks.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

69 - ms rathore

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)