Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1130 (RAJ)

Hardeo Jat v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-13

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, a challenge is given to the order dated 012.1993 passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Jaipur exercising powers under Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. By the order impugned, the respondents recorded finding against the petitioner who was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Dhuala, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara. 2. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the State Government is totally a non-speaking and unreasoned order. The same has been passed in quite a mechanical manner without application of mind. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, the State Government was under obligation to give its own findings on the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is pointed out by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the order impugned dated 012.1993 does not disclose any reason to impose penalty against the petitioner and no finding as required under Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act of 1953 is recorded against the charges levelled. 3. Per contra, Dy. G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent State has stated that the order impugned was passed after taking into consideration the report of inquiring authority and by due application of mind, therefore, no interference is warranted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 5. From perusal of the order impugned dated 012.1993, it is apparent that the State Government after receiving inquiry report and record of the enquiry, served a notice to show cause upon the petitioner and he was directed to submit his comments with regard to the findings given by the inquiry officer. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation controverted the findings given by the inquiry officer. In spite of it, it is stated in the order impugned that no satisfactory reply was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation controverted the findings given by the inquiry officer. In spite of it, it is stated in the order impugned that no satisfactory reply was filed by the petitioner. The State Government in quite a mechanical manner recorded finding against the petitioner by saying that after considering the enquiry report and relevant record, the allegations levelled against the petitioner stands proved. The State Government has not recorded findings against the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is well settled that while recording the findings against the Sarpanch or against any member of Panchayat Raj Institution, the State Government is required to record its own findings against each and every charge levelled against the person concern. While reaching to a specific conclusion, the Government is required to consider the entire material available on record including the evidence produced by the parties. In the present case, from perusal of the order impugned, it does not reveal as to how the State Government reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty for the charges levelled against him. In view of it, the order dated 012.1993 is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. The same is, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 6. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. The order impugned dated 012.1993 passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural Development, Jaipur is hereby quashed. 7. No order as to costs.