High Court quashed a suspension order against an elected Sarpanch. The order relied solely on an old inspection report without a fresh inquiry or report, failing to consider a later enquiry that found the Sarpanch not solely responsible.
Writ petition allowed; suspension order dated 05.03.2024 quashed and set aside.
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.
(1 of 7) [CW-4390/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:16369]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4390/2024
Bheru Singh S/o Sumer Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Baori Kalla, Tehsil Phalodi, District Phalodi.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. C. S. Kotwani with |
|---|---|
| Mr. Yash Rajpurohit | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Manish Patel,AAG |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order
Reportable
16/04/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:16369]
[CW-4390/2024]
(2 of 7)
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Baori Kalla, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.06.2022 (Annexure-2), on account of an FIR having been lodged against him on 08.06.2022. The order of suspension dated 08.06.2022 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8884/2022 before this Court. A co-ordinate Bench of this court on 03.08.2022, while issuing notices, stayed effect and operation of the suspension order dated 08.06.2022. The petitioner assumed the charge of Sarpanch again after passing of the interim order by this Court.
[2024:RJ-JD:16369]
[CW-4390/2024]
(3 of 7)
He further submits that even the respondents have got the matter inquired and obtained a report which clearly shows that the petitioner alone cannot be made responsible for the allegations leveled in the charge-sheet. Learned counsel further submits that for one reason or other, the respondents do not want the petitioner to work on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Baori Kalla.
[2024:RJ-JD:16369]
[CW-4390/2024]
(4 of 7)
respondent authorities on 10.08.2021, certain infirmities were found in the work conducted during the tenure of the petitioner as Sarpanch, thus, he was placed under suspension. He further submits that one more enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and a report to that effect was furnished on 14.02.2023 which also indicates that the work which was got done during the tenure of the petitioner, was not in accordance with the parameters and certain infirmities were pointed out and therefore, the suspension order passed by the respondents on 05.03.2024 is just, proper and correct. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed. However, on a pointed query, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the factual matrix narrated hereinabove.
[2024:RJ-JD:16369]
[CW-4390/2024]
(5 of 7)
respondents on 10.08.2021. On a query being raised by this Court to learned counsel for the respondents about any report made in pursuance of the inspection conducted by the respondents on 10.08.2021, he very fairly submitted that no such report is on record and straight away, the suspension order of the petitioner has been passed on account of the inspection conducted by the respondents. Although, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that there is one more enquiry report placed on record along with the reply dated 14.02.2023, but interestingly that report has not been taken note of while passing the suspension order dated 05.03.2024. The suspension order dated 05.03.2024 has been passed against the petitioner relying upon the inspection conducted by the respondents on 10.08.2021. It is noted that the inspection dated 10.08.2021 was also relied upon by the respondents while passing the order of suspension dated 21.10.2022 and, thereafter, on the strength of the enquiry report dated 22.11.2022, the petitioner was reinstated but once again, the inspection dated 10.08.2021 has been relied upon by the respondents while passing the suspension order dated 05.03.2024. The chronology of the events in the present case clearly demonstrates that for one reason or the other, the respondents are bent upon keeping the petitioner away from working as Sarpanch by passing the suspension order on one count or another. Even, no report has been placed on record by the respondents with regard to the inspection conducted by them on 10.08.2021.
[2024:RJ-JD:16369]
[CW-4390/2024]
(6 of 7)
(7 of 7) [CW-4390/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:16369]
Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and take action against the petitioner, if found feasible in accordance with law.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
30-SunilS/Anil Singh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash a suspension order against an elected Sarpanch passed without new material and based on an old inspection report.
Whether suspension of a democratically elected representative based on flimsy grounds or political vendetta violates the principles of democracy.
Whether the suspension order was passed mechanically without application of mind considering available enquiry reports.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bheru Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Additional Commissioner Cum Deputy Secretary II (Inquiry), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department
Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur
District Collector, Phalodi
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Phalodi
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
