Rajasthan High Court: The present petition was filed against the order dated 24-01-2024, whereby the petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jadana, Panchayat Samiti Rashmi, Chittorgarh. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J., opined that a dishonest official or a person deserves no sympathy and leniency, and in cases where an office bearer or an officer was caught red handed and was proceeded under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’), there was no scope of taking a lenient view. Therefore, in cases where the facts were so clear which did not warrant any preliminary enquiry to be conducted, recourse to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (‘1996 Rules’) for proceeding against erring official under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (‘the 1994 Act’) could be taken. Further, since the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the huge amount of bribe and the fact that he was behind the bars for more than forty-eight hours therefore, an order of suspension was essential, and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jadana, Panchayat Samiti Rashmi, Chittorgarh in 2020. Further, while working as Sarpanch, the petitioner was arrested in pursuance of FIR registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh under Section 7 of the PC Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was caught red handed while accepting an amount of Rs. 2,40,000 as bribe and in pursuance of the registered FIR, he was put in judicial custody and was ultimately bailed out by the co-ordinate bench of the present Court vide order dated 16-01-2024.
The petitioner was issued a notice dated 24-01-2024 seeking an explanation as to why the proceedings under Rule 22 (2) of the 1996 Rules, should not be initiated against him and on the same date the petitioner was also served with a charge-sheet. Consequently, the petitioner was suspended by the respondents vide order dated 24-01-2024. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition against the order of suspension dated 24-01-2024.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court after perusal of Rule 22 of 1996 Rules opined that the basic intention of the rule framers was that if any complaint or allegation was brought to the notice of the State Government then before proceeding against concerned official under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, a fact-finding preliminary enquiry should be done. The Court opined that intention of law was to find out the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint or to verify the facts which were brought to the notice of the Government before proceeding against the Office/Office Bearer under Section 38 of the 1994 Act. Thus, to proceed against a person under Section 38 of the 1994 Act, the State Government should have complete facts and if required, seek an explanation from the erring official to proceed against him.
The Court opined that in the present case, the facts disclosed in the FIR were clear, unambiguous and did not warrant any preliminary enquiry to be conducted to find out the veracity or correctness of the same. Further, since the petitioner had been bailed out by a co-ordinate bench of the present Court after having suffered incarceration of more than one and half month, therefore, it could safely be presumed that prima facie the petitioner was involved in the incident as mentioned in the registered FIR.
The Court opined that in the present case, it was not mandatory for the State Government to take recourse to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 22 of the 1996 Rules before initiating the action against the petitioner, as he was present in person at the time of handing over the notice/order dated 24-01-2024, and was confronted with the questions and presumably he had averred his contentions. The Court opined that in these circumstances, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner appeared to be just and proper and therefore, the suspension order dated 24-01-2024 was passed as per Section 38 of 1994 Act.
The Court opined that a dishonest official or a person deserved no sympathy and leniency, and in cases where an office bearer or an officer was caught red handed and was proceeded under the PC Act, there was no scope of taking a lenient view. Therefore, in cases where the facts were so clear which did not warrant any preliminary enquiry to be conducted, recourse to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 22 of the 1996 Rules for proceeding against erring official under Section 38 of the 1994 Act could be taken.
The Court opined that in the present case, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which was not a punishment, as the petitioner had been kept away from the workplace so that he might not influence the proceedings of the enquiry. Further, since the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the huge amount of bribe and the fact that he was behind the bars for more than forty-eight hours therefore, an order of suspension was essential, and accordingly dismissed the petition.
[Z v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 477, Order dated 27-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Parvez Khan Moyal
