[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganesha Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 13 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:9472]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12147/2025
Ganesha Ram S/o Shri Rawata Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Village Mokalsar, At Present Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Mokalsar,
Panchayat Samiti, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary (Ii)
(Inquiry) To The Govt., Department Of Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar.
4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Madan Beniwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
Ms. Meenal Singhvi
Ms. Pratyaksha Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
Reserved on:- 17/02/2026
Pronounced on:- 13/03/2026
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. It assails
the validity of the order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure-03) whereby
the petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch of Gram
Panchayat Mokalsar, Panchayat Samiti Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar.
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (2 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
2. Facts as narrated in writ petition are that the petitioner was
elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mokalsar, Panchayat
Samiti Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar on 04.10.2020. A
complaint was lodged by one Ganesha Ram before the Anti-
Corruption Bureau alleging that the petitioner demanded illegal
gratification of Rs.10,000/- for sanctioning a residential house
under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. Acting on the complaint,
the ACB registered FIR No.129/2025 dated 26.05.2025 at Central
Police Station (ACB), Jaipur for the offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The petitioner
was arrested in connection with the said case and was
subsequently granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Special
Court, ACB Cases, Sri Ganganagar.
3. According to the petitioner, the complainant hatched a
conspiracy with certain opponents and placed an amount of
Rs.10,000/- in the drawer of the petitioner's office table and thus
falsely implicated him. It is further asserted in the writ petition
that the same amount of money was allegedly owed by the
complainant to the petitioner and that no demand or acceptance
of bribe was made by him. It is further stated in the writ petition
that the name of Govind Ram, father of the complainant, had
already been included in the list of eligible beneficiaries prepared
by the Gram Vikas Adhikari on 12.05.2025, which was forwarded
to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suratgarh on
16.05.2025.
4. According to the petitioner, once the list was forwarded to
the Panchayat Samiti, the Gram Panchayat had no authority either
to sanction or refuse the claim under the scheme, and therefore
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (3 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
no work relating to the complainant was pending with the
petitioner. Subsequently, by order dated 16.06.2025, the
respondent Additional Commissioner & Deputy Secretary (II)
suspended the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section
38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act of 1994' only).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section
38(4) of the Act of 1994 empowers the State Government to
suspend a member or chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution
only in two circumstances: (i) where an enquiry under Section
38(1) has been initiated, or (ii) where criminal proceedings
relating to an offence involving moral turpitude are pending trial
before a court of law. However, the impugned order does not
disclose under which of the aforesaid contingencies the petitioner
has been suspended. The order merely states that the petitioner
accepted a bribe of Rs.10,000/- and therefore is guilty of
misconduct or disgraceful conduct, which language corresponds to
Section 38(1)(b) dealing with removal, and not with suspension
under Section 38(4).
6. Learned counsel further submitted that no enquiry has been
initiated against the petitioner under Section 38(1) of the Act of
1994, nor has any charge been framed or served upon him as
contemplated under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996' only),
which prescribes the procedure for conducting an enquiry. Learned
counsel vehemently submitted that Rule 22 mandates that before
taking action under Section 38, the State Government may direct
the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer to conduct a
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (4 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
preliminary enquiry and submit a report. Thereafter, definite
charges are required to be framed and communicated to the
concerned office bearer. In the present case, neither any
preliminary enquiry was conducted nor any charge-sheet was
served upon him.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing the
attention of the Court to various documents placed on record,
submitted that there is a discrepancy in the timing of the
suspension order and the issuance of the notice/charge-sheet to
the petitioner. It was contended that the suspension order was
passed on 16.06.2025, whereas the notice initiating enquiry was
issued thereafter. According to the petitioner, this sequence
indicates that the suspension order was passed in a
predetermined manner without following due process. It was thus
argued that the order dated 16.06.2025 has been issued with
mala fide intent and therefore deserves to be quashed and set
aside on this count only.
8. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been
suspended merely on account of registration of the FIR, which by
itself cannot be a valid ground for suspension of an elected
representative without satisfying the statutory conditions under
Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994. He submitted that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry and the
impugned order has been passed without proper application of
mind. Therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 16.06.2025
suspending the petitioner be quashed and the respondents be
restrained from obstructing the petitioner from functioning as
Sarpanch.
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (5 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
following judgments:
(I) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad
and Ors. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407.
(II) Sang Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and
Ors. reported in AIR 2022 Raj 70.
10. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent - authorities
submitted that the act of the petitioner amounts to misuse of
official position and constitutes misconduct as well as disgraceful
conduct, which is unbecoming of an elected representative holding
public office. In view of the said allegations and the registration of
the criminal case, the competent authority exercised powers under
Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994 and passed the order of
suspension.
11. It was submitted that an FIR No.129/2025 dated 26.05.2025
has been registered against the petitioner under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of a complaint lodged
before the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The allegation in the FIR is
that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification for facilitating the
release of benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana
(Gramin). Acting on the complaint, the ACB laid a trap and the
petitioner allegedly accepted illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/-,
apart from Rs.2,000/- earlier taken at the time of verification. It
was thus submitted that criminal proceedings for an offence under
the Prevention of Corruption Act are pending against the
petitioner, which squarely attracts the second contingency
contemplated under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994.
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (6 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
12. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding the discrepancy in the timing of the
suspension order and the notice initiating enquiry is concerned,
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the documents
relied upon by the petitioner merely reflect the timing of the
digital signatures affixed on the soft copies of the order and
notice. It was submitted that both the documents were processed
simultaneously in the physical file and therefore no adverse
inference can be drawn from the timing reflected in the digitally
signed copies. According to the respondents, it cannot be said that
the suspension order dated 16.06.2025 was passed prior to the
issuance of the notice initiating enquiry against the petitioner.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent - authorities further
submitted that suspension under Section 38(4) is administrative
and preventive, and prior opportunity of hearing is not required
before passing a suspension order. Departmental proceedings
under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996 have been initiated and the
petitioner was served with notice/charge-sheet dated 16.05.2025.
14. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the tenure of the petitioner on the post of
Sarpanch has already come to an end and, therefore, the present
writ petition has been rendered infructuous. It was thus prayed
that the writ petition be dismissed, as the impugned suspension
order is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any
arbitrariness or jurisdictional infirmity.
15. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that admittedly the tenure of the petitioner as Sarpanch has come
to an end. The petitioner may still be considered for appointment
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (7 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
as Administrator of the concerned Gram Panchayat after
completion of his tenure, in terms of the notification issued by the
Government of Rajasthan in this regard. Therefore, according to
the petitioner, the writ petition cannot be treated as infructuous.
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
17. Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"38. Removal and Suspension.
(1) The State Government may, by order in writing and
after giving him and opportunity of being heard and
making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary,
remove from office any member including a
Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson of a Panchayati
Raj Institution, who-
(a) refuses to act or becomes incapable of
acting as such; or
(b) is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of
duties or any disgraceful conduct:
Provided that any enquiry under this sub -section
may, even after the expiry of the term of the
Panchayati Raj Institution concerned be initiated or, if
already initiated before such expiry, be continued
thereafter and in any such case, the State Government
shall, by order in writing, record its findings on the
charges levelled.
(2) The Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson
removed under Sub -sec.(1) may at the discretion of
the State Government also be removed from the
membership, of any of the Panchayati Raj Institution
concerned.
(3) The member or the Chairperson or the Deputy
Chairperson removed under Sub -sec. (1) or against
whom finding have been recorded under the proviso to
that sub -sec, shall not be eligible for being chosen
under this Act for a period of five years fr om the date
of his removal or, as the case may be, the date on
which such findings are recorded.
(4) The State Government may suspended any
member including a Chairperson or a Deputy
Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution against
whom an enquiry has been initiated under Sub-sec. (1)
or against whom any criminal proceedings in regard to
an offense involving moral turpitude is pending trial in
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (8 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
a Court of law and such person shall stand debarred
from taking part in any act or proceeding of the
Panchayati Raj Institution concerned while being under
such suspension.
Provided that the State Government may also
suspend any Panch on the recommendation of the
Ward Sabha or a Sarpanch on the recommendation of
the Gram Sabha, but the State Government shall do so
only when a resolution to that effect passed by a Ward
Sabha, or a Gram Sabha, as the case may be, is
referred by the State Government to the Collector for
convening a special meeting of the Ward Sabha or the
Gram Sabha, as the case may be, for fin ally
ascertaining the wished of the members and the
members present in the meeting so convened by the
Collector and presided over by his nominee, reaffirm
the resolution seeking suspension of the Panch or the
Sarpanch, as the case may be, by a majority of two-
third of the members present and voting.
Providing further that no resolution seeking
suspension of the Panch or Sarpanch shall be moved or
passed before the completion of a tenure of two years
by a Panch or a Sarpanch, as the case may be.
(5) The decision of the State Government on any
matter arising under this section shall subject to any
order made under Sec. 97, be final and shall not be
liable to be questioned in any Court of law."
18. The relevant extract of Rule 22 of the Panchayati Rules of
1996 is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"Rule. 22. Procedure of enquiry.
(1) Before taking any action under Sub-sec. (1) of
Section 38, where on its own motion or upon any
complaint the State Government may ask the Chief
Executive Officer or any other officer to get a
preliminary enquiry done and to send his report to the
State Government within one month.
(2) If, upon consideration of the report received as
aforesaid or otherwise, the State Government is of the
opinion that action under Sub-sec. (1) of Section 38 is
necessary, the State Government shall frame definite
charges and shall communicate them in writing to the
Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson or Member of the
Panchayati Raj Institution together with such details as
may be deemed necessary. He shall be required to
submit a written statement within one month admitting
or denying the allegations, giving his defence, if any
and whether he desires to be heard in person."
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (9 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
19. A closer scrutiny of the provisions of the Act of 1994 and
Rules of 1996 clearly shows that while sub-sections (1) to (3) of
Section 38 deal with removal from office of any member including
a Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj
Institution, sub-section (4) deals exclusively with suspension.
Sub-section (1) requires a preliminary enquiry and opportunity of
being heard before removal; sub-section (2) envisages removal
from membership; sub-section (3) puts a future bar on re-
election. Sub-section (4), however, independently empowers the
State Government to suspend a member, does not envisage a
punitive order, and is only intended to temporarily prevent the
person from participating in official functions. Suspension can be
ordered at any stage of enquiry and is not contingent on the
completion of departmental proceedings. The two contingencies
departmental enquiry and criminal trial are independent; one does
not depend on the other, nor are the contours of the two
intermixed. Crime and misconduct have distinct legal meanings.
20. This Court prima facie finds that it is not in dispute that FIR
No.129/2025 was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, alleging that the petitioner
demanded and accepted illegal gratification for facilitating benefits
under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Gramin). The allegations,
if proved, clearly involve moral turpitude, which is a recognized
ground for suspension under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994.
21. In the considered opinion of this Court, the contention of the
petitioner with regard to the alleged discrepancy in the timing of
issuance of the suspension order and the notice initiating enquiry,
is that the suspension order dated 16.06.2025 was passed prior to
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (10 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
the issuance of the notice initiating enquiry and therefore reflects
a predetermined exercise of power. However, the explanation
furnished by the respondents indicates that the timings reflected
in the documents relied upon by the petitioner pertain merely to
the digital signatures affixed on the electronically generated copies
of the documents, whereas the relevant proceedings were
simultaneously processed in the physical file. In the absence of
any cogent material demonstrating that the order of suspension
was in fact passed before initiation of the enquiry, this Court is not
persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioner that the
impugned order suffers from procedural impropriety on this count.
22. So far as the objection raised by the respondents regarding
the writ petition having been rendered infructuous on account of
the expiry of the petitioner's tenure as Sarpanch is concerned, the
same does not entirely conclude the controversy. The petitioner
has pointed out that under the relevant notifications issued by the
State Government, a person who has held the office of Sarpanch
may still be considered for appointment as Administrator of the
concerned Gram Panchayat after completion of the elected tenure.
In such circumstances, the challenge to the suspension order
cannot be said to have been rendered wholly academic.
Nevertheless, even after considering the said aspect, the legality
of the impugned suspension order is required to be tested on the
touchstone of the statutory provisions governing the field.
23. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
suspension was improper because no departmental enquiry had
been initiated and that Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 was not
followed, cannot succeed since, in the present case, the petitioner
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (11 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
was admittedly served with a notice for initiation of the enquiry
under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1994 and for that purpose alone,
notice dated 16.05.2025 under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996
has been served upon him. There is no challenge laid to the said
notice or the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner in the writ
petition. Thus, enquiry stands initiated against him under the
notice dated 16.05.2025. No mandatory time gap between such
initiation of enquiry under Section 38(1) and the order of
suspension under Section 38(4) is envisaged in the scheme of the
Act or the Rules of 1996.
24. This Court is conscious of the judgment passed by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Sanjay Sukhwal Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1960/2024)
while dismissing the writ petition against suspension order of
Sarpanch, it was held that in cases where an office bearer or
public functionary is allegedly caught red-handed while accepting
illegal gratification and proceedings under the Prevention of
Corruption Act have been set in motion, the matter stands on a
different footing. In such circumstances, where the facts prima
facie appear clear and do not necessitate a detailed preliminary
enquiry, recourse to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996
for initiating proceedings under Section 38 of the Act of 1994
cannot be said to be unjustified. Allegations of corruption strike at
the very root of public administration and an office bearer facing
such accusations cannot claim indulgence as a matter of course. A
dishonest official/officer/person against whom such serious
allegations are levelled cannot seek sympathy or leniency merely
on technical considerations.
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9472] (12 of 12) [CW-12147/2025]
25. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
impugned order of suspension dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure-03)
cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, illegal or contrary to the
provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and Rules.
26. In view of the forgoing discussion, the present writ petition
stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.
27. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
257-Dinesh/-
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 02:09:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
