Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 716 (RAJ)

Sita Ram Joshi v. The State of Rajasthan

2005-03-02

S.K.KESHOTE

body2005
Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner in this petition prayed for grant of following relief ; (i) “issue an appropriate writ, order or direction the nature thereof thereby quash and set aside the order dated 19.09.1994 (annexure-14) and order dated 19.09.1994 (annexure-19); (ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby hold that the entire enquiry against the petitioner was illegal and without authority of law. (iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances in favour of the petitioner and cost be also awarded.” 3. While the petitioner was holding the office of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Khareda, Panchayat Samiti Todaraisingh, District Tonk, he was served with the charge-sheet and charges framed against him have been reproduced by him in para No.3 of the writ petition. The Sub Divisional Officer, Malpura was appointed as Inquiry Officer in the matter and on completion of enquiry submitted his report to the Government. In the enquiry no charge in clear terms has been found established against the petitioner. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondent No.1 without affording any opportunity of hearing on 19.09.1994 a finding of guilt has been recorded against him and directed to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to recover Rs.19,800/-from the petitioner. On 10.02.2005, it is given out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Rs.19,800/-has been deposited by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on that day prayed for grant of time to file the affidavit of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner filed the affidavit, which reads as under : “1. That the above noted writ petition was listed before this Hon’ble Court on 10.02.2005 and this Hon’ble Court directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit regarding the entire amount. 2. That the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount and to this effect the petitioner is submitted herewith an affidavit before this Hon’ble Court. It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordship be pleased to accept this application and take the affidavit on record in compliance of order of this Hon’ble Court.” 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents also does dispute that the amount of Rs.19,800/-has been deposited by the petitioner. It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordship be pleased to accept this application and take the affidavit on record in compliance of order of this Hon’ble Court.” 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents also does dispute that the amount of Rs.19,800/-has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner is no more Sarpanch, and the allegations made against him relate to the period of 1988. 7. That apart the petitioner appears to have not been given any opportunity in the matter to defend himself . The Enquiry officer has also not found the petitioner guilty of the allegations made against him. 8. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts of the case, I am satisfied that the order, impugned, in this writ petition cannot be allowed to stand. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The orders dated 19.09.1994 (annexure-14) and dated 19.09.1994 (annexure-19) of the Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur are quashed and set-aside. No order as to costs.