Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 617 (RAJ)

Sukh Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2007-03-21

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2007
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.— After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it reveals from the facts of the case more specifically from para 12 of the petition that: “Since the meetings for the Gram Panchayat Gudha Jagmalotan of Panchayat Samiti Riyan Badi are fixed to be held on 05th and 20th of every month wherein petitioner being Chairperson is required to attend the same, as such, the petitioner personally appeared before the learned respondent, Divisional Commissioner on 19.07.2004 and by filing application apprised him of the situation for exempting his personal appereance on the given date i.e. on 20.07.2004. On 20.07.2004, the counsel on behalf of petitioner appeared before the learned respondent Divisional Commissioner and submitted an application to the effect that a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Addl. CEO, Nagaur be provided so as to submit a reply to the same and prayed for 7 days time.” 2. In aforesaid para it is specifically contended by the petitioner that after receiving notice from Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer petitioner appeared before the Divisional Commissioner and submitted that since the meetings for the Gram Panchayat are fixed to be held on 05th July and 20th July of every month and the petitioner being a Chairperson is required to attend the said meetings, hence, it will not be possible for him to appear personally on 20.07.2004, the next date fixed by the Divisional Commissioner. It is also contended that he personally appeared before the Divisional Commissioner on 19.04.2004 and by way of filing an application prayed that he may be exempted from personal appearance on the given date which is 20.07.2004 and to give another date. It is also contended that on 20.07.2004 counsel on his behalf appeared before the Divisional Commissioner and submitted an application to the effect that the copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Addl. CEO, Nagaur be provided so as to submit reply to the same and prayed for seven days time. He has also placed on record the applications dt. 19th July, 2004 and 20th July, 2004 as Annexures-13 and 14 respectively. But petitioner’s prayer was not accepted and order impugned dt. 20.07.2004 for his removal from the post of Sarpanch and disqualification has been passed which is against the principles of natural justice, therefore, order under challenge dt. 20.07.2004 may be set-aside. 3. 19th July, 2004 and 20th July, 2004 as Annexures-13 and 14 respectively. But petitioner’s prayer was not accepted and order impugned dt. 20.07.2004 for his removal from the post of Sarpanch and disqualification has been passed which is against the principles of natural justice, therefore, order under challenge dt. 20.07.2004 may be set-aside. 3. In reply to para 12 of the writ petition, it is submitted by the respondents that: ßfjV ;kfpdk ds in la[;k 12 ds lEcU/k es dksbZ fookn ugha gSAÞ 4. From the above facts, it appears that before passing impugned order there was reasonable explanation filed by the petitioner for his absence on 20.07.2004, but upon perusal of the impugned order passed on 07.10.2004, it is revealed that learned Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer passed ex-parte order observing that the Sarpanch is not present inspite of the information given to him, therefore, it is clear that order under challenge has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without supplying copy of the enquiry report. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised so many other grounds with regard to illegality and irregularities of enquiry and prayed that all these points were to be considered by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer but without giving any reason the Divisional Commissioner declared the petitioner disqualified to hold the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Tehla which is totally erroneous. 6. In this view of the matter, it is appropriate to quash Annexure-16 dt. 07.10.2004 and to remit this case back to the Divisisonal Commissioner with the direction that he may supply copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and petitioner is permitted to file his detailed reply to the enquiry report and raise all the grounds which he has taken in the writ petition. The Divisional Commissioner is further directed that after hearing both the parties, shall decide the controversy afresh, while considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply. 7. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions and the order impugned dt. 07.10.2004 is set-aside. The case is remitted to the Divisional Commissioner for passing fresh order. * * * * *