Rajasthan High Court: In a batch of writ petitions, filed by outgoing Sarpanches against removal from the post of Panchayat Administrators without affording any opportunity of hearing, a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., set aside the orders of removal. The Court held that the removal of elected representatives from their posts without affording them an opportunity of being heard and without conducting any inquiry, as required under law, violates the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasised that an elected representative, who serves as the voice of the people, can only be removed after careful consideration and due process of law. The Court held it is a cornerstone of democracy that every accused has a right to a fair trial to determine whether he is innocent or guilty.
Background
The petitioners were former Sarpanches who, after the completion of their tenure, were appointed as Administrators for their respective Gram Panchayats by a notification from the Panchayati Raj Department dated 16-01-2025. This arrangement was made to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Gram Panchayats. After levelling variety of charges against the petitioners, a notice was issued to them calling upon them to submit their reply. The petitioners in response to the notice duly submitted their reply. Subsequently, the petitioners were removed from the post of Administrator, without affording them any opportunity of hearing or conducting a proper inquiry as mandated under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules of 1996’). The removal was based on a fact-finding report prepared by the respondents. In a series of petitions clubbed together by the Court, the petitioners challenged these orders, arguing that they were passed without following the proper procedure, and were in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused Article 243-B and 243-E of the Constitution and Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (‘Act of 1994’). The Court noted that a conjoint reading of Article 243-E and Section 17 of the Act of 1994 shows that the duration of all the Panchayati Raj Institutions is five years and in the present case, the tenure of all the Panchayats expired in the month of January 2025. An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed before the expiration of its duration, i.e., five years and before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution.
The Court observed that fresh elections were not conducted for the post of Sarpanch or Member of Panchayats and hence as a stopgap arrangement, the petitioners were appointed as the Administrators of their respective Panchayats. The Panchayati Raj Institutions of the petitioners were dissolved under Section 95 of the Act of 1994 and powers of the Administrator were delegated to them under Section 98 of the Act of 1994. The Court rejected the submissions of the respondents that since the petitioners had completed their five-year term and were thereafter appointed as Administrator, they have no legal right to file these writ petitions. On the contrary, the petitioners have been allowed to continue by virtue of the provisions of law having statutory force.
The Court after perusing Section 38 of the Act of 1994 which provides for removal and suspension of any member of the Panchayati Raj Institution noted that the State Government may remove any member of the Panchayati Raj Institution, after giving him an opportunity of being heard, who refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting as such; or who is guilty of misconduct in discharge of his duties or any disgraceful conduct.
The Court observed that all the petitioners were removed from their post of the Administrators without affording any opportunity of hearing. The Court noted that the basic prospect of natural justice mandates a pre-decisional hearing and not a post-decisional hearing. If the authorities had already decided to act prior to initiating any enquiry, then granting a post-decisional hearing would be an empty formality calling for violation of the principle of natural justice.
The Court citing Man Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 331, noted that,
“it is the settled proposition of law that any administrative or quasi-judicial order is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it.”
The Court also noted that,
“it is a well-settled principle of law that gathering evidence by way of enquiry with an intention to support the pre-decisional punishment will just emphasize the matter and the same would be against the principle of Natural Justice.”
The Court observed that the respondents have pre-determined to impose the order of removal on the petitioners and thereafter, proceeded to hold enquiry, giving only a post-decisional opportunity of hearing which does not subserve the rule of natural justice and is contrary to the principles of fair play. The respondents who embark upon a post-decisional hearing will naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation of the petitioners at such a post-decisional opportunity.
It is settled proposition of law and an internationally recognised human right that every accused has a right to a fair trial to determine whether he is innocent or guilty. If any charges have been levelled against the petitioners, they have right of fair opportunity of hearing and enquiry to the truth which is vital for everyone involved in a case. This is a cornerstone of democracy, helping to ensure fair and just societies and limiting abuse by Government and the State authorities. The Court observed that the petitioners were treated as guilty before they have had their day in enquiry. Hence, their right of fair enquiry was undermined.
In the light of afore-stated discussion the Court quashed and set aside the impugned removal orders of the petitioners from the post of Administrator and granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners by exercising the powers contained under Section 38 of the Act of 1994 and Rules of 1996 framed thereunder. The respondents are directed to conduct inquiry and pass fresh orders preferably within 2 months.
The Court in its parting words noted that,
“in the name and interest of delimitation, the Government cannot postpone the entire election process of the Panchayati Raj Institutions indefinitely, contrary to the mandate contained under Article 243-E of the Constitution of India and Section 17 of the Act of 1994. The entire exercise of delimitation should have been completed prior to the expiry of the term of the Panchayats or within six months of the dissolution of these Panchayati Raj Institutions.”
In case of persistent failure and delay to conduct election process of the Panchayati Raj Institutions, it is incumbent upon the State Election Commission or the Election Commission of India to intervene and take necessary measures to restore the democratic process. Prolonged postponement of these elections can result into a governance vacuum at the local level, adversely affecting the delivery of services and developmental activities at the grass root level.
The Court also directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Election Commission of India, and the State Election Commission to promptly address the issue and ensure that elections for the Panchayati Raj Institutions are conducted at the earliest opportunity, in accordance with the mandate of Article 243-E of the Constitution of India.
[Mahaveer Prasad Gautam v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3985, decided on 18-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Anil Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Yashodhary Pandey, Mahindra Shandilya, Rahul Kamwar, Anurag Sharma with Akshat Sharma & Anoop Meena, Anshuman Saxena, Tanveer Ahamad, Laxmi Kant Malpura, Naina Saraf, Jiya Ur Rahman, Pradeep Sharma, Laxmi narayan Saini, Martand Pratap Singh, Amit Jindal with Neetu Bhansali, Shiv Lal Meen, Vikas Kumar Jakhar, Devendra Choudhary, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Advocates
For the Respondents: Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Ashutosh Udawat, Saurabh Sharma, Sumit Purohit, Prateek Saxena, Abhishek Bhardwaj
Buy Constitution of India HERE
