The petitioner challenged his suspension as an Acting Sarpanch following a notice to show cause regarding alleged bribery. The Court held that suspension pending inquiry under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994 is lawful and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition and stay petition are dismissed. No substantive service-oriented relief was granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:39012]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14127/2023
Setharam S/o Shri Hanumana Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Belwa Khatriya, Balesar, District- Jodhpur, At Present Acting Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Belwa Khatriya, Balera, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kan Singh Oad
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
09/11/2023
[2023:RJ-JD:39012]
[CW-14127/2023]
(2 of 2)
As it is the settled proposition of law, an incumbent, on initiation of an inquiry, can, in terms of Section 38(4) the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (‘the Act of 1994’), be placed under suspension.
(REKHA BORANA),J
4-Vij/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether suspension of a Sarpanch pending inquiry under Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, based on Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994, is contrary to law.
Whether the High Court can interfere in the suspension order served along with notice to show cause.
If no substantial question of law arises regarding the legality of the inquiry initiation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Setharam
State Of Rajasthan
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
