Sarita Nareda Wife Of Dayaram ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4205 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8695/2022

Sarita Nareda Wife Of Dayaram Meena
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
The State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chandra Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL (V.J.)

Order 16/06/2022 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mandawar, and vide order dated 08.06.2022, has been placed under suspension without any preliminary enquiry. He submits that as per Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, a preliminary enquiry is mandatory before passing any order under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act.

Counsel further submits that allegations leveled against the petitioner for demolition of shops without permission of State Government, is wrong, as all shops are situated on the spot. Photographs of shops have also been placed on record. Counsel submits that the suspension order has been passed on instructions of respondent No.2 & 3 which is illegal and bad in law and deserves to be quashed and stayed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG has appeared as caveator and submitted that the preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the same has been concluded on 06.04.2022. She submits that as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Rules, 1996, the preliminary enquiry was conducted and charge-sheet has also been served upon the petitioner, hence suspension is valid and within parameters of law. She has also

(2 of 2) [CW-8695/2022]

placed reliance on the judgment of Chandra Prakash Vs. State of Rajsthan and Ors. Reported in [AIR (1999) Raj.(349)] & Ganesha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Reported in [2014 (2) WLN 125 (Raj.)].

Heard counsel for parites and perused the impugned order dated 08.06.2022.

It appears from the record that there is no reference in the impugned order dated 08.06.2022 as to when shops were demolished at the behest of petitioner, nor there is reference of any conclusion in the preliminary enquiry on 06.04.2022 as argued by the counsel for respondent. Prima facie it appears that the impugned order has been passed in slipshod manner without making mandatory compliance of Section 38(1) of the Act of 1994. As far as judgments relied by the counsel for respondent- State are concerned, this Court finds that in those cases after holding the preliminary enquiry, the orders of suspension were passed and the present case is entirely on different footing.

Having considered facts and circumstances of the present case, issue notice to respondents.

Since, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1, notices be issued only to respondent Nos.2 & 3, returnable by 18.07.2022.

Counsel for respondent No.1 may file reply to the writ petition.

In the meanwhile, the impugned order of suspension dated 08.06.2022 shall remain stayed, however, the stay order would not affect the initiation of inquiry against the petitioner, if so contemplated by the State Government.

Put up on 21.07.2022.

(SUDESH BANSAL), (V.J.)

SACHIN/157

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)