[2025:RJ-JP:51329] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19957/2025 Liyakat Khan S/o Yakub Khan, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Jaisinghpura, Post Baroda Meo, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary (Second), Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Zila Parishad Alwar, Through Its The Chief Executive Officer. 4. Panchayat Samiti Govindgarh, District Alwar, Through Its Development Officer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 18/12/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 18.11.2025 vide which, the petitioner has been directed to submit his explanation along with the documents/evidence and also the order dated 18.11.2025 vide which, he has been suspended from the post of Member Panchayat Samiti Govindgarh, District Alwar, by invoking Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act of 1994’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent order of suspension has been issued immediately after the issuance of charge-sheet and that too without any justification [2025:RJ-JP:51329] (2 of 2) [CW-19957/2025] and hence, both the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the enquiry report dated 21.08.2024, the petitioner has not been found guilty of any illegalities being committed and despite the fact that the Development Officer and Assistant Engineer have been found liable for the wrong being done, it is the petitioner against whom, the said charge-sheet has been issued. 4. At the very outset, it is evident that the scope of interference at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet is absolutely limited and can only be invoked in case it is established that the issuance of charge-sheet is per se without jurisdiction. Since, there is no ground being raised qua the lack of jurisdiction, thus, at this stage of issuance of charge-sheet, there is no occasion for interference by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 5. As far as suspension of the petitioner vide order dated 18.11.2025 is concerned, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the State Government has wrongly exercised the powers vested under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994 to suspend the petitioner, against whom the enquiry has been initiated. Thus, on both the counts, the challenge made in the writ petition fails and consequently, the same is dismissed. 6. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DANISH USMANI /06