Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 302 (RAJ)

Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-02

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 30.3.1993 passed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan exercising the power under proviso 2 Sub-section 4 of Section 17 of Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1953) by the order impugned dated 30.3.1993 a finding was recorded against the petitioner who was then holding the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchyat Rohida, Panchayat Samiti Pindwara, Distt. Sirohi. 2. A charge-sheet under a memorandum dated 14.1983 was served upon the petitioner levelling two allegations against him to the effect that he misused his office by making allotment of a piece of land at lower rates in favour of his family member. According to the petitioner an inquiry was conducted by the respondents behind his back and a notice Annex. 6 dated 28.2.1987 was served upon him proposed to impose a penalty of recording finding under Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. The notice dated 28.2.1987 refers to an inquiry conducted against the petitioner, however, copy of such inquiry report was not supplied to him. The State Government by the order impugned dated 30.3.1993 recorded finding against the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is two folded. First, that the copy of inquiry report was not supplied to him along with the notice Annex. 6 dated 28.2.1987 and the same left him unable to defend himself effectively. The order passed by the State Government is totally a non-speaking and unreasoned order and from perusal of the same it does not reveal that what were the reasons available with respondent to held the petitioner guilty for the allegations levelled. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the orders impugned. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In view of it I am left with no option but to accept the contention of the petitioner made in the petition. The notice Annex. 6 mentions that the petitioner was found guilty as a consequence of inquiry against him and the petitioner was directed to submit the explanation within a period of fifteen days. The petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the inquiry report, as such, it was impossible for him to submit an effective explanation to defend himself . 6 mentions that the petitioner was found guilty as a consequence of inquiry against him and the petitioner was directed to submit the explanation within a period of fifteen days. The petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the inquiry report, as such, it was impossible for him to submit an effective explanation to defend himself . It is well settled that any person who is to defend himself in quasi judicial proceedings must know that what is the material available against him with the authority proceeding against him. Though the notice was given to the petitioner but the same was nothing but an empty formality as in absence of copy of the inquiry report it was impossible for the petitioner to submit an effective explanation to defend himself . It amounts to denial of an opportunity to defend the delinquent. In view of it the proceedings taken place in continuation of the notice dated 28.2.1987 are in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Beside the above, in my considered opinion the order dated 30.3.1993 deserves to be quashed and set aside being totally unreasoned and non-speaking one. The order impugned dated 30.3.1993 mentions that a notice dated 28.6.1984 was served upon the petitioner but no response was given to the same. It further mentions that from perusal of the copy of the inquiry report, concerned file and the related record the allegation levelled against the petitioner stands proved. There is no dispute that the proceedings under Sub-section 4 of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act are quasi judicial proceedings by nature. Such proceedings are always required to be objective and principles of natural justice are required to be adhered. An order with reasons is essential while deciding the quasi judicial proceedings. In the present case the order impugned has been passed on behalf of the State Government without giving any specific reason to hold the petitioner guilty. The finding given by the Additional Director cum Special Secretary to the Government the Rajasthan, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj is not supported by any reasons. Absence of the petitioner does not preclude the respondent from his basic responsibility to reach at an objective decision after considering the evidence available on record. A person can not be held guilty of mis-conduct merely on the ground that he failed to appear before the adjudicating authority. Absence of the petitioner does not preclude the respondent from his basic responsibility to reach at an objective decision after considering the evidence available on record. A person can not be held guilty of mis-conduct merely on the ground that he failed to appear before the adjudicating authority. Impact of the absence of delinquent is that he may not be in position to defend himself by producing evidence or by legal and factual arguments but the prime responsibility lies upon the adjudicating body to give specific finding on the charges levelled by examining evidence available. 5. In view of it the order impugned dated 30.3.1993 passed by the State Government is perverse and is therefore hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. Cost of the petition is made easy.