Purushottam S/o Ram Lal vs State of Rajasthan

Under challenge is the order dated 18.1.2017 issued by

Dy. Secretary (Inquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, whereby the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Samrol, Panchayat Samiti, Manohar Thana, District Jhalawar.

Suspension of a Sarpanch relates to Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (here-in-after ''the Act of 1994''), which reads as under:

"38. Removal and Suspension.-

(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 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."

From the averments made in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner while working as Sarpanch was trapped on 16.12.2016 by the Anti Corruption Bureau while accepting the

bribe. FIR No. 350/2016 was registered and petitioner was arrested. Following judicial custody for a period of about a month, the petitioner has indeed been granted bail.

Be as it may, following the petitioner's trap on 16.12.2016, he was issued a notice on 18.1.2017 under sub-rule

(2) of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (here-in-after, ''the Rules of 1996'') requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be held liable for misconduct in respect of the incident of being caught red handed by the ACB accepting Rs. 5000/- bribe. A statement of charges was annexed thereto.

Simultaneously, by another order also dated 18.1.2017, the petitioner was suspended.

The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned letter dated 18.1.2017 requires the petitioner to show cause as to why the enquiry against him should not be commenced. On the plain language of the letter, enquiry under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996 had not commenced on

18.1.2017. Consequently on the plain language of Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994, the petitioner could not have been suspended.

That the petitioner was/is under investigation by the Anti Corruption Bureau is of no event for the suspension as he has yet not been challaned or charge framed against him by the criminal court.

Mr. Anurag Sharma, AAG appearing for the respondent has submitted that for one, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary and not a matter course in the facts of the case should be dismissed as the petitioner was trapped and caught red handed accepting a bribe while holding public office. The public impact of the incident warrants that the petitioner should not be allowed to continue holding the post of Sarpanch, till he is exonerated if at all, in accordance with law, either in the departmental enquiry for misconduct or in criminal proceedings.

Counsel submitted that even otherwise, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that no enquiry for misconduct has been commenced against the petitioner at odds with the averments in the petition, where it has been admitted in para 6 that the charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996. He submitted that inexactitude of the words in the impugned order dated 18.1.2017 are of no avail. Its content show that an enquiry against the petitioner has been commenced under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996 and a statement of charge served on him, to which even a reply has been filed. In the aforesaid fact situation, by resort to Section 38 (4) of the Act of 1994, the petitioner was rightly suspended.

Heard. Considered.

The petitioner in para 6 of the petition admits that an enquiry under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996 has indeed been commenced against him and in para 11 states that he has already filed reply in defence thereto stating that the entire episode of 16.12.2016 when he was purportedly trapped and caught red handed taking a bribe was a conspiracy .

In this view of the admission, I find no force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that impugned order dated 18.1.2017 on its plain language only evidences intention of the commencement of the enquiry under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996 and the enquiry not actually having commenced, the order of suspension could not have been passed with reference to Section 38 (4) of the Act of 1994. The argument of the counsel is not tenable, as it seeks to emphasize the letter dated 18.1.2017 only literally missing out its clear intent of the enquiry under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996 being commenced against the petitioner and a statement of charges being served upon him.

Aside of all other aspects of the matter, as argued by

Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned AAG the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is indeed equitable and discretionary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whereby public servant has been caught red handed taking a bribe, there is also no warrant to

exercise the court's jurisdiction.

There is no force in the petition. It is dismissed.

Stay application also stands dismissed.