Disposed

Pushpa Devi v. State Panchyati Raj Depors

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2012CW/10009/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the competent authority and ordered the State Government to take a final decision within four weeks after affording a hearing opportunity, noting that suspension cannot be indefinite.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear on 19.10.2012; State Government directed to take final decision within four weeks after hearing.

Pushpa Devi Vs State Panchyati Raj Depors — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CWP-10009/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ***

¶4

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10009/2012 Pushpa Devi Vs.

¶5

State of Rajasthan & others.

¶6

DATE OF ORDER : 06/10/2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI ***

¶7

Mr.Ashok Gaur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ajat Shatru S. Mina, for petitioner Mr.LN Boss, AGC, for respondents.

¶8

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner who is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Pranchayat Bhuhana, District Jhunjhunu assailing the order of suspension passed by the competent authority dt.02/07/2012 (Anx.8) in exercise of powers conferred u/Sec.38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

¶9

Counsel for petitioner submits that the authority has abused its discretion while exercising its powers u/Sec. 38(4) of the Act, 1994 placing the petitioner under suspension who is a elected Sarpanch vide order dt. 02/07/2012 and even from the perusal of the allegation alleged in the charge sheet which came to be served upon the petitioner prior thereto on 25/04/2002 (Anx.2) in no manner can be construed to be a misconduct and initiating disciplinary action and holding enquiry under the provisions of the Scheme of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, remains an empty formality but the

¶10

¶11

CWP-10009/2012

¶12

ultimate fact remains that she is facing agony of suspension in a democratic set up being a public representative since July, 2012. In support of submission counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 2012(SC) 1339 and taking assistance thereof, counsel submits that the term 'misconduct' as regards public representative has to be considered and examined by the authority more rigorously than of misconduct being examined by the Courts in service jurisprudence. Counsel further submits that that what will be the effect of the charge sheet may not be relevant at this stage but placing the petitioner under suspension is uncalled for and being arbitrary exercise of powers, it requires interference by this Court.

¶13

Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents placing certain documentary evidence on record to justify that before the order impugned being passed by the authority placing the petitioner under suspension dt. 02/07/2012, a preliminary enquiry was conducted at the level of Divisional Commissioner as evident from report Anx.4 dt.13/06/2012 and after examining the preliminary enquiry report and the allegations levelled against the petitioner it was recommended for taking action u/Sec.38(4) of the Act, 1994 and only after due

¶14

¶15

CWP-10009/2012

¶16

application of mind, the authority took decision to place the petitioner under suspension vide order impugned dt.02/07/2012.

¶17

Counsel further submits that during pendency of the instant writ petition, the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu submitted its report dt.24/08/2012 and that was examined by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur and he sent its report to the State Government vide letter dt. 17/09/2012 arriving at a conclusion that charge No.1 and 3 stand proved against the petitioner and it is the State Government who has to take its final decision obviously after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated u/R.22(7) of the Scheme of the Rules of 1996.

¶18

Counsel for respondents submits that the material, which has come on record, justifies the action of the authority and as regards the enquiry, it has reached to a final stage and the State Government has to take its decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner u/R.22(7) of the Rules, 1996 and this Court may not like to interfere with the enquiry which reached at final stage and what is being contended by the petitioner in reference to the allegations alleged, the State Government is supposed to consider the same while taking its final decision.

¶19

¶20

CWP-10009/2012

¶21

Since the matter has reached at a final stage and after the allegations being examined and the enquiry officer has found the charge No.1 and 3 proved and the Divisional Commissioner, after examining the record, has also concurred with the same and recommended to the State Government vide his comments dt. 17/09/2012, it will not be appropriate for this Court to examine the order of suspension at this stage and it is not the case of the petitioner that the authority was not competent to place her under suspension. However, considers it appropriate that the State Government may take final decision as contemplated under the law within a time framework since a public representative in the democratic set up cannot be deprived of right vested under law for an indefinite period.

¶22

Accordingly, without going into merits of the order of suspension any further, which is impugned in the instant petition, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the concerned competent authority on 19^th of October, 2012 and the State Government is directed to take its final decision within four weeks thereafter after affording opportunity of hearing and the decision may also be communicated to the petitioner who, if still aggrieved, will be at

¶23

¶24

CWP-10009/2012

¶25

liberty to avail remedy which the law permits and it is also made clear that the competent authority while taking final decision in the matter, may not be influenced by the observations made by this Court herein above.

¶26

With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

[AJAY RASTOGI],J.

¶28

Raghu/p.5 /10009-CW-2012-Final.doc Certificate: -All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed/Raghu,PAJW

Pushpa Devi v. State Panchyati Raj Depors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi v. State Panchyati Raj Depors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yangtze Optical Fibre and Cable Co. Ltd. Vs Aksh Optifibre Ltd.

Dr Rajendra Singh and Anr. Vs State of Raj Medical and Health

Rishabh Agarwal Vs Raj Technical University and Ors.

Amit Soni Vs Raj Ayurved University Ors.

Pace Institute of Professional Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Preeti Jain and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.