[2025:RJ-JP:44166] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6935/2025 Lala Ram Jat S/o Sh. Sukharam, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Gram Jyaniyo Ka Bas, Gram Panchayat Sundo Ka Bas, Panchayat Samiti Kishangarh Renwal District Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Suspended Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Sundo Ka Bas, Panchayat Samiti Kishangarh Renwal District Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Divisional Commissioner, Division Jaipur, Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur. 3. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary-Ii, (Inquiry), Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur. 4. District Collector, Jaipur District Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur (Raj.) 6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Kishangarh- Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dudi, Mr. Kapil Jaroda For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Ashutosh Udawat, Mr. Sumit Purohit, Mr. Pranay Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT ORDER CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 03/11/2025 RESERVED ON : 03/11/2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 06 /1 1 /2025 1. The order of suspension of the petitioner - Sarpanch dated 11.03.2025 (Annx.11) as well as memorandum of charge-sheet along with statement of charges dated 11.03.2025 (Annx.12) issued by the respondent - State Government, are challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner has further sought a direction to be issued to the respondents to hand over charge of [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (2 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sundo Ka Bas, Panchayat Samiti Kishangarh-Renwal, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred as “Gram Panchayat”). 2. The facts as pleaded by the petitioner, giving rise to present writ petition, are stated in succinct as under :- 2.1 The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sundo Ka Bas in the year 2020 and at that point of time, the Village Sundo Ka Bas was part of the Gram Panchayat Bhainsala. Later on, the Village Sundo Ka Bas was created as a new Gram Panchayat. For construction of the Panchayat Bhawan in newly created Gram Panchayat, land measuring 4200 yards was allotted vide Order dated 11.06.2020. 2.2 However, the said land was under encroachment by one Ramuram Gurjar, to whom the Gram Panchayat has issued various notices on 19.03.2024, 28.03.2024 & 25.09.2024. For removal of encroachment, a three members committee was appointed, who called upon the encroachee to submit his explanation. The encroachee in his explanation, informed that against the notices for eviction, a civil suit has been filed, wherein the competent civil court vide Order dated 24.11.2024 has granted interim injunction in his favour. The Committee, thus, recommended to take appropriate action for being impleaded as party defendant and to get stay vacated. Also, a decision has been taken to initiate appropriate action under Section 101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1994") with the help of police administration. [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (3 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] 2.3 One of the resident of village, Mr. Ramlal Jat has donated his land for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan. While considering the said proposal, the Panchayat Samiti Sambhar Lake has constituted a three members committee to inspect the proposed land. The said committee after examining the site, has found proposed land to be more suitable for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan and vide its report (Annx.5), has recommended for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan over the land so offered to be donated by one of the resident of the village. 2.4 It is further stated that permission for construction of Panchayat Bhawan was already granted by the office of the District Collector, Jaipur and the construction work has already started on 14.04.2023. 2.5 It is further submitted that the petitioner always discharged his duties diligently, honestly and strictly complying the provisions of the Act of 1994. However, due to political vengeance, a complaint has been filed against the petitioner, for which a three members committee was constituted by the Panchayat Samiti Kishangarh-Renwal. The said committee has submitted a factual report dated 05.02.2024 (Annx.7), wherein it is clearly recorded that the land earlier allotted for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan was encroached over by some of the villagers, for which the proceedings have already been initiated by the Gram Panchayat. It is also recorded that the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat for the Panchayat Bhawan has already been opened with regard to land so donated. The Committee in its factual report while explaining the location of the proposed site [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (4 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] has reported that said site is more suitable. The committee has also taken note of the fact that in view of the order passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan has been undertaken upon the donated land after unanimous decision taken in the Aam Sabha. Regarding one allegation of inauguration function done in the absence of the Local MLA, it is reported that no Board / inauguration stone was found on the site. Petitioner contended that as a matter of fact, the said factual report (Annx.7) was in favour of the petitioner and the Committee has nowhere concluded that the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct. 2.6 It is stated that surprisingly, the respondent - State Government has issued the memorandum of charge-sheet dated 11.03.2025, levelling three charges against the petitioner while exercising powers under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996. On the same day, while exercising the powers under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994, the order dated 11.03.2025 was passed and the petitioner was placed under suspension. Challenging the same, present writ petition has been filed. 3. In reply to the writ petition, the factual averments made in the writ petition were, though, not disputed by the respondents, but it is stated that while taking decision for shifting the site of the construction of Panchayat Bhawan, the earlier orders passed by the State Government as well as public sentiments have been overlooked/flouted by the petitioner. While alleging the action of the petitioner - Sarpanch to be arbitrary and highhanded, it is stated that the land subsequently proposed is lesser in size and [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (5 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] the same is not suitable for the said purpose. With regard to Charge No. 2, the respondents submitted that no effective action was taken for removal of the encroachment by the petitioner - Sarpanch. The respondents stated that a preliminary enquiry as required under Rule 22(1) of the Rules of 1996 was conducted and based upon the same, the definite charges were framed and duly communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, the order of suspension has been passed while duly complying the statutory requirement and thus, the interference of this Court is not called for. 4. Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, counsel contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are apparently untrue, baseless and misconceived. Counsel for the petitioner contended that before issuing the charge sheet in question no preliminary enquiry is conducted and no finding has been recorded in the the enquiry report (Annx.7) holding petitioner as guilty of any misconduct, therefore, the issuance of charge-sheet under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996 is not tenable in the eyes of law. It is also contended that the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not at all been considered by the respondents before issuing the charge-sheet. Counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the Charge No. 3, it is clear that the action has been taken on extraneous and political consideration. While challenging the order of suspension, counsel for the petitioner argued that the order impugned is non-speaking as no reason has been assigned justifying the suspension of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (6 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] 5. Countering the said arguments, counsel for the respondents - Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature and there had been a clear defiance of the government orders on the part of the petitioner - Sarpanch. AAG - Mr. Mathur has further submitted that since the tenure of the Gram Panchayat has already over, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and the requires no adjudication on merits. Counsel for the respondents further argued that since the statutory mandate of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 has already been followed, therefore, the order of suspension dated 11.03.2025 as well as charge-sheet dated 11.03.2025 do not require any interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The statutory scheme is clear and unambiguous and the same requires that before taking any action under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1994, a preliminary enquiry is required to be done by the State Government. Upon consideration of the report aforesaid or otherwise, if the State Government is satisfied that action is required to be taken against a member of the Panchayati Raj Institution then, the charge-sheet under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1994 can be served upon the said member and only thereafter, the order of suspension can be passed. 7.1 It is admitted on behalf of the respondents that factual report (Annx.7) is the only enquiry report considered by the respondents for issuing the charge-sheet as well as order of [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (7 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] suspension dated 11.03.2025. A bare perusal of the report (Annx.7) shows that the same is only a factual report that too runs in favour of the petitioner and the committee has nowhere recorded any finding declaring the petitioner guilty of any misconduct. Apart from the said factual report, the respondents have failed to produce any other material to justify the opinion so formed for considering the petitioner prima-facie guilty of any disgraceful misconduct. In absence of any such preliminary enquiry report or any other incriminating material, no action under section 38 of the Act of 1994 can be sustained. 7.2 This Court is aware that at this stage veracity or legality of charges levelled in the charge-sheet cannot be adjudicated, however, this Court can very well examine as to whether the charges on the face of it constitute the misconduct of the nature requiring suspension of an elected representative or whether there is application of mind before passing the order of suspension. The record of the case reveals that several notices were issued to the encroacher for removal of encroachment and the same could not be removed in view of the prevailing interim injunction being passed by the competent civil court. Effective steps have been taken by the Gram Panchayat to get the interim order vacated. Regarding the charge of constructing the Panchayat Bhawan on a different location, the site report placed on record shows that three members committee constituted by the Panchayat Samiti has examined the site and has recommended the same to be more suitable for construction of Panchayat Bhawan. [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (8 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] With regard to the Charge No. 3, no explanation / response is given by the respondents in their reply. The Committee in the factual report (Annx.7) has reported that no inauguration stone was found upon the building of the Panchayat Bhawan. Even otherwise, Local MLA is not invited in an inauguration function cannot be said to be a misconduct of disgraceful nature. Rather, the charge No. 3 clearly fortifies petitioner’s submission that the action of the respondents is actuated with the political malice and taken at the instance of the Local MLA. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of respondent – department in holding the petitioner prima-facie guilty of disgraceful misconduct as well as the action is cleanly been taken on political consideration. 8. The order of suspension dated 11.03.2025 is apparently an unreasoned and non-speaking order. The petitioner is suspended only on the ground that petitioner is prima-facie found as guilty of disgraceful misconduct for which, a charge-sheet has been issued under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996. The law is well settled that mere issuance of a charge-sheet is not sufficient to place an elected representative under suspension. There is no reason / satisfaction even for the namesake has been recorded in the order that the continuation of the petitioner on the post of Sarpanch is going to affect the enquiry adversely, which is the key requirement for placing any public representative under suspension. [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (9 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] 9. This Court is in agreement with the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed in mechanical manner, without due application of mind upon the relevant material and on political considerations. This view also get support from the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Smt. Vimla Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.: 2007(4) WLC 378, Geeta Devi Naruka vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.; 2008(2) WLC 261, Pradeep Hinder vs. State of Rajasthan; 2008(1) WLC 294 and Deepika Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan; 2019(2) WLC (UC) 786. The law is well settled that an elected representative cannot be equated with government servant and before a holder of an elected post is suspended, there must be compelling reasons and it should be resorted only when a satisfaction has been recorded that fair enquiry shall be reasonably impracticable without exercising such power. Apparently, in the instant case, such exercise is clearly lacking. In the case of Nahar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 824/2000) decided on 19.01.2005 also, this Court has quashed an order of suspension on the ground that the same being a non-speaking order. 10. In view of the law already settled, public representatives forms a distinct category then the government employees, as they represent the will of public and having limited tenure. Before placing such elected representative under suspension, there has to be a strong foundation of misconduct as well as existence of sufficient reasons that their continuation on the post is going to affect the functioning of the institute or is adverse to the pending [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (10 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] proceedings. The suspension of a public representative merely on political consideration cannot be allowed to be sustained. This Court is of the view that democratically elected representative cannot be prevented from discharging their duties by placing them under suspension on account of flimsy grounds or to settle the political scores. Placing a democratically elected person under suspension on account of political vendetta weakens the very foundation of democratic set up, therefore, it is required on the part of the State Authorities to pass the order of suspension after due application of mind and while exercising the said power judiciously. Passing of suspension order of elected representative, not only violates the statutory scheme but adversely affects the will of public at large. 11. In response to the contention of the respondents that the petition is rendered infructuous as the tenure of the Gram Panchayat is already over, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in similarly situated various cases, including in case of Sarpanch Smt. Geeta Bai Meena, Gram Panchayat Ratiyapur, Panchayat Samiti Masalpur, District Karauli, the State Government, even after completion of her tenure, revoked her suspension vide order dated 29.09.2025 and vide order dated 01.10.2025 she has been appointed as Administrator of the said Gram Panchayat. The said action is taken in view of the policy decision taken by the Pachayati Raj Department vide notification dated 16.01.2025 issued under Section 95 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The Department directed that upon expiry of a Gram Panchayat’s tenure, the erstwhile Sarpanch shall be appointed as Administrator. [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (11 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] Since, in other cases, the respondent – Department even after expiry of the Panchayati Institution has revoked the suspension of erstwhile Sarpnachs and appointed them as Administrators, therefore, the said objection that the writ petition challenging the suspension is not maintainable after expiry of tenure is wholly misconceived. The notification dated 16.1.2025 issued while exercising powers under Section 95 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 along with consequent order dated 11.02.2025, gives a right of consideration to the erstwhile Sarpanch to be appointed as Administrator. This Court is also of the opinion that the State Government cannot be allowed to take different stands as per its own convenience and they cannot be allowed to aprobate and reprobate at the same time. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the cause raised in the present writ petition does not survive after expiry of the term of the Panchayati Raj Institution. 12. On a specific query posed by this Court, counsel for the respondents stated that the enquiry proceedings have not been completed so far. On the contrary, counsel for the petitioner stated that as a matter of fact, no substantial proceedings were undertaken and in view of the same, the order of suspension cannot be sustained on the ground of prolonged suspension. This Court in various judgments has deprecated such practice and has held that an elected representative cannot be kept suspended during the pending enquiry without taking necessary steps to complete the same. The prolonged suspension of an elected representative, who has limited tenure, cannot be permitted for [2025:RJ-JP:44166] (12 of 12) [CW-6935/2025] time indefinite. The respondents cannot be allowed to enjoy premium upon the delay caused by themselves in completing the enquiry. On the said ground of prolonged suspension also, the order of suspension is not sustainable. 13. In this view of the matter, this court finds that the impugned order of suspension is non-speaking without recording reasons justifying and requiring suspension of an elected representative. As per discussion made above, it is clear from the Charge no.3 that the action has been taken only due to the fact that Local MLA is not invited in the alleged Inauguration function and thus the suspension of the petitioner is actuated with political vendetta. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order of suspension dated 11.03.2025 is quashed and set aside. However, it will be open for the respondents to undertake the enquiry proceedings without being influenced by the findings recorded in the present judgment. 14. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J INDER/