The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging prosecution sanction granted to a Junior Assistant convicted of corruption. The Court held the committee decision was valid as supported by a majority vote and noted no need to interfere absent fresh material.
The writ petition for quashing the order granting prosecution sanction is dismissed.
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/RJJD/017807]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1824/2023
Suresh Kumar S/o Megha Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Vpo Naharanwali, Tehsil Anoopgarh, Distt. Shri Ganganagar Currently Posted As Junior Assistant, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Shridhar Mehta |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay for Mr. Sunil Beniwal,AAG |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 23/05/2023 Pronounced on 29/05/2023
India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(I) The impugned order dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent no.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside;
(II) That the minutes of meeting dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure-5) qua the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(III) The petitioner may kindly be granted relief in consonance with the facts stated and the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition.
(IV) Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.”
post of Junior Assistant, Zila Parishad, Nagaur with the
[2023/RJJD/017807]
[CW-1824/2023]
(2 of 7)
respondent-Department. However, on 24.03.2022 an FIR (No.97/2022) came to be registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Pali-II, against the petitioner and other persons, for offences under Sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B IPC; in the said FIR, it was stated that the present petitioner was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Bureau, while taking certain amount as illegal gratification from one Mr. Rameshpal in lieu of obtaining financial sanction pertaining to the pending proposals of the works under the NREGA Scheme for Village Panchala Sidha (Nagaur).
2.1. Thereafter the petitioner was arrested, but subsequently, released on bail; however, as a consequence of such proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.03.2022 (w.e.f.24.03.2022). Such decision of placing the petitioner under suspension was challenged by him by preferring S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14288/2022 before this Hon’ble Court; wherein this Hon’ble Court had passed an interim order dated 06.01.2023, staying the effect and operation of the suspension order dated 31.03.2022.
2.2. Subsequently, the investigating agency applied for prosecution sanction on 13.05.2022 under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which was placed before the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad Nagaur, in its meeting held on 30.11.2022, but in the said meeting, it was resolved qua the petitioner that the issue of prosecution sanction, shall be decided in the next meeting.
[2023/RJJD/017807]
[CW-1824/2023]
(3 of 7)
2.2.1. Thereafter, the next meeting of the said Committee was convened on 27.12.2022, wherein it was resolved to grant such prosecution sanction against the petitioner; accordingly, vide the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the respondent no.2Chief Executive Officer & Member-District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad Nagar, the prosecution sanction against the petitioner was granted; the said resolution was recorded by respondent no.2 in the impugned order dated 17.01.2023.
2.3. Thus aggrieved by the minutes of the meeting dated 27.12.2022 and the impugned order dated 17.01.2023, the petitioner has preferred this petition, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
3.1. It was further submitted that the impugned order granting prosecution sanction was passed without due application of mind and the respondent no.2 while misusing his powers, not only got the meeting of the Committee conducted, but also did not record the fact that the Chairman of the Committee was not present in the meeting, at the relevant time.
3.2. It was also submitted that under Section 57 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Act, 1994, the Head of the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad is the Zila Pramukh, and it is under his
[2023/RJJD/017807]
[CW-1824/2023]
(4 of 7)
Chairmanship that the meeting can be convened, and resolutions can be passed; however in the present matter, the said provision of law was not adhered to, as is evident from the minutes of the meeting dated 27.12.2022.
4.1. It was further submitted that as per Section 90 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Act, 1994, the District Establishment Committee comprises of Chairman Zila Pramukh, Chief Executive Officer, District Elementary Officer & any officer nominated by the competent authority; in the present case, all the four member, as provided under Section 90, were present during the meeting held on 27.12.2022, and the impugned decision was taken by consent of majority of the members, for granting prosecution sanction against the petitioner.
[2023/RJJD/017807]
[CW-1824/2023]
(5 of 7)
4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that though the Chairman Zila Pramukh was present in the meeting, but he had dissented from signing the proceedings of the meeting. It was further submitted that as provided under the law, even if one of the members disagrees with the decision of the Committee, the other members were capable of taking a decision, and the same would be valid in the eye of law.
4.3. In furtherance, it was however, submitted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 91(4)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as per which, the petitioner could have filed an appeal against the impugned decision of the District Establishment Committee; yet the petitioner, without exhausting such alternative remedy, has preferred the present petition; thus, as per learned counsel, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy alone.
[2023/RJJD/017807]
[CW-1824/2023]
(6 of 7)
6.1. The matter for granting prosecution sanction was finally placed on 27.12.2022 before the District Establishment Committee, and by a majority decision, it was resolved to grant such prosecution sanction, which has also been recorded by the Chief Executive Officer (respondent no.2) in the impugned order dated 17.01.2023; aggrieved whereby, the present petition has been preferred before this Hon’ble Court.
(7 of 7) [CW-1824/2023]
[2023/RJJD/017807]
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Establishment Committee validly decided to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner despite a dissent by the Chairman.
Whether the petitioner failed to exhaust the alternative remedy under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Suresh Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
Chief Executive Officer And Member Dist. Establishment committee, Zila Parishad, Nagaur
Distt. Establishment Committee
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
