[2025:RJ-JP:51150-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1362/2025 Dr. Mrs. Vinod Kumari Sangwan W/o Shri Manvir Singh Sangwan, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Jharka, Alwar, Rajasthan- 301403. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary To The Government-Ii (Enquiry), Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. District Collector, District Khairthal- Tijara, Rajasthan. 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Kotkasim, District Khairthal- Tijara Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 18/12/2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. 2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer made by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition wherein the appellant [2025:RJ-JP:51150-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1362/2025] assailed her suspension order dated 06.08.2025, charge-sheet/notice dated 24.08.2025 and the Preliminary Enquiry Report dated 24.04.2025. 3. The contention made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the provisions contained under Section 38(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') could not have been exercised before suspending the writ petitioner who was holding the post of Pradhan. 4. Brief facts which have come to the notice of the learned Single Judge are that an incident occurred on 21.04.2025 where it was alleged that the appellant writ petitioner had beaten the Block Development Officer with a Slipper and the said incident was recorded as evidence resulting in the conduct of a preliminary inquiry under Rule 22(1) and the suspension of the petitioner. However, considering the provisions of the rules, when a challenge was made against the concerned suspension order, the authorities withdrew the order and again examined the case afresh after receiving the report of the preliminary enquiry dated 24.04.2025, whereafter they decided to issue a charge sheet under Section 38(1) of the Act and a notice thereto was issued on 24.08.2025 to the writ petitioner/appellant. At the same time, before considering the charges to be prima facie proved, the appellant was placed under suspension. 5. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued and has pointed out various judgments passed by this Court time and again relating to interference in suspension matters. The same were also placed before the learned Single Judge who has examined the same in detail. [2025:RJ-JP:51150-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1362/2025] 6. The learned Single Judge also took into consideration the judgment passed in Sangam Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan SBCWP 6663/2025, and other connected writ petitions decided on 28.08.2025. 7. Learned counsel submits that as the Enquiry Officer has also not been appointed in the departmental proceedings initiated against her, there was no occasion to keep the petitioner under suspension, especially when the earlier suspension order has been withdrawn. Learned counsel further submits that a cross-FIR has also been registered by the appellant against the concerned BDO. 8. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is an elected person and the power under suspension ought to be exercised sparingly. We have considered the submissions. 9. We notice that earlier suspension order was passed immediately after the FIR was registered. However, taking into consideration that definite charges were required to be framed and a prima facie result has to be considered of the preliminary enquiry, the suspension order was withdrawn (more so at the instance of the Court) on 29.07.2025. The petitioner was placed under suspension after taking into consideration the preliminary enquiry report and also taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses and evidence produced before the Committee which concluded that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of the conduct of assaulting a public servant. 10. The law with regard to suspension is well settled in the case of Sameera Bano (Smt.) vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors., AIR 2007 Raj 168, wherein the Court held as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:51150-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1362/2025] “14. Rule 23 purportedly framed to give effect to the provisions of Sub- section (2) of Section 39 of the Act lays down the procedure for removal; it runs as under: 23. Procedure for removal in case of disqualification-. (1) Whenever it is represented to, or otherwise brought to the notice of the Chief Executive Officer in case of Panch/Sarpanch and to the State Government in case of Pradhan/Up-Pradhan, Pramukh/Up-Pramukh or member of a Panchayati Raj Institution, who has been declared to be duly elected as such or who has been appointed as such under any provision of the Act, was not qualified, or was disqualified, for such election or appointment at the time when he was so elected or appointed or has thereafter become disqualified for continuing as such member, the competent authority shall draw up clearly and precisely the alleged disqualification or disqualifications forming the subject of the representation made to it, or otherwise brought to its notice, and shall forthwith issue a notice to such member, which shall: (i) Set out the gist of the allegations against him. (ii) Fix a date, not less than fifteen days after the date of issue of the notice, on which the inquiry shall be made, (iii) Require him to show cause, for personal appearance or in writing, why his seat should not be declared by the State Government to be or to have become vacant on the ground of his having been not qualified or disqualified, as alleged, (iv) Call upon him to produce, in denial of the allegation, such documentary or other evidence as may be in his possession, and (v) Invite him to appear personally, if he so desired, on the date fixed by the notice, and a copy of the notice shall be sent also to the informant, if any. (2) On the date fixed by the notice, the Chief Executive Officer or the State Government as the case may be shall hear the informant, if any, as well as the member if he appears before him and requests for a personal hearing, shall consider the document and other evidence produced by them in proof or disproof of the allegation or allegations, shall make such further inquiry as he may think necessary, shall record a finding as to the alleged disqualification or disqualifications and shall either order the proceedings to be dropped or declare the seat of such member to have become vacant or make such other order as may be proper in the circumstances of the case under Section 39 of the Act.” While it is true that due precaution should be taken before taking action upon the conduct of an elected office bearer, [2025:RJ-JP:51150-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1362/2025] however, suspension of an elected office bearer may be required to ensure that the enquiry is conducted fairly and without being affected (as is apparent from the language used in the impugned order). It is apparent that the suspension order has been passed in order to keep the elected representative away from interference in the departmental enquiry proceedings. There is no manner of doubt in the mind of this Court that if the writ petitioner is allowed to continue on the post of Pradhan, it would directly prejudice a free and fair enquiry and, therefore, the suspension order passed under Section 38 of the Act cannot be said, in any manner, to be unjustified. 11. The order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 12. The Special Appeal Writ is accordingly, dismissed. 13. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ DEEPTA ARORA /32