[2025:RJ-JP:16289] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4284/2025 Sangita W/o Shri Dharmendra, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ahiro Ki Gali, Dharmadachoraha, Mangarol Road, Baran, Rajasthan- 325205. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary Ii (Enquiry), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Singh for Mr. Punit Singhvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned charge-sheet dated 06.02.2025 and the matter has been sent for conducting enquiry against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the irregularities in the functioning of the Sarpanch, a detailed enquiry was conducted and conclusion of the said enquiry reveals that certain pattas were issued against the Rules wherein involvement of the petitioner along-with the Village Development Officer and Up-Sarpanch was also found and it was found that [2025:RJ-JP:16289] (2 of 3) [CW-4284/2025] huge revenue loss was caused to the Government. Learned counsel submits that a charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner and Up Sarpanch but no action has been taken against the Village Development Officer, which is responsible for the affairs of the Gram Panchayat, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the interim order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Himanshu Versus State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2630/2024). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that looking to the irregularities conducted by the petitioner and Up-Sarpanch of the Panchayat, while issuing the patta against the Rules, charge-sheet has been served upon both of them and the matter is required to be decided by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel submits that even enquiry has been contemplated against the Village Development Officer and the said matter is also under process, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that enquiry was conducted by three members of the committee with regard to certain irregularities in issuing pattas wherein prima facie involvement of the petitioner, Up-Sarpanch and Village Development Officer was [2025:RJ-JP:16289] (3 of 3) [CW-4284/2025] found and on the basis of the same, charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner and the Up-Sarpanch. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner that the Village Development Officer has been left out and no action has been taken against him. 7. Looking to the statement made by counsel for the respondents-State and the averments made in the reply, the respondents are in process of contemplating enquiry against the Village Development Officer also. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the instant writ petition does not lie against the charge-sheet unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the proceedings. It is settled proposition of law that the charge-sheet cannot be interfered by the Court lightly or in a routine manner. The petitioner instead of seeking quashing of charge-sheet at the initial stage must submit her reply before the enquiry officer/disciplinary officer and wait for conclusion of the proceedings. 9. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the available defence before the Enquiry Officer, which have been raised in this writ petition. 10. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/45