Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1220 (RAJ)

Ganesh Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-02

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against notice dated 10.09.2014 issued by the Additional District Collector, Sirohi and the notice dated 21.05.2015 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur and have further sought quashing of the inquirers initiated against them. 2. The petitioners were elected Ward Members of Gram Panchayat, Santpur during the period 2005 to 2010; an FIR No.140/2008 was lodged against the Sarpanch, Patwari, Gram Sewak and the petitioners with the allegations that forged Patta was issued in favour of Smt. Godawari without following due process of law; the police gave FR, however, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against all the persons. Revision petitions were filed against the order and the same were pending before the revisional court. 3. In the meanwhile the Patta issued in favour of Smt. Godawari was challenged by way of filing revision petitions and the same were allowed and the Patta was cancelled, against which, writ petitions were filed and the same are pending consideration before this Court; inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was initiated against the Gram Sewak and the charge was not found proved against him. 4. A complaint was sent to the Lokayukta, which was sent for inquiry to the Divisional Commissioner, who forwarded the same to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi for conducting preliminary inquiry and who in turn forwarded the same to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Abu Road. 5. A report has been submitted by the Block Development Officer indicating that as the matter was sub judice before the High Court in the revision petitions no inquiry can be initiated in the matter. However, the Divisional Commissioner vide his orders dated 19.08.2014 decided to hold inquires under Sections 38 and 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act') and the inquires were held by the Additional District Collector, Sirohi after issuing notices dated 10.09.2014, to which replies were filed by the petitioners. 6. The Additional District Collector submitted his report to the Divisional Commissioner, who in turn issued notices dated 21.05.2015 along with the inquiry report calling upon the petitioners that why under Section 39(2) of the Act they should not be disqualified. 7. 6. The Additional District Collector submitted his report to the Divisional Commissioner, who in turn issued notices dated 21.05.2015 along with the inquiry report calling upon the petitioners that why under Section 39(2) of the Act they should not be disqualified. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issuance of notices by the Additional District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner based on the report submitted by the Additional District Collector are ex facie illegal and arbitrary; the fundamental argument raised is that the matter pertaining to issuance of Patta is pending consideration before the competent criminal court as well as the High Court and the initiation of proceedings under Section 38 of the Act are nothing but an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the same deserve to be quashed and set aside; it is further submitted that despite the fact that the proceedings were pending consideration before the criminal court, in departmental proceedings against Gram Sewak, he has been exonerated, which clearly shows that no case is made out against the petitioners and, therefore, the impugned notices deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record. 9. From the material available on record, it is apparent that on account of issuance of Patta to Smt. Godawari Devi, several proceedings were initiated against the persons involved in issuance of Patta including the petitioners; while the criminal proceedings are pending before the revisional court, the revision against the Patta having been accepted by the revisional court, the same are pending before the High Court in the writ petitions filed by Smt. Godawari Devi; the present proceedings have been initiated based on the provisions of Section 38 of the Act, which provide for removal and suspension from office of any Member of a Panchayati Raj Institution. 10. The proceedings under Section 38 of the Act are essentially independent of any other action, which might have been taken qua the conduct of the Members of the Panchayati Raj Institution and irrespective of pendency of any criminal case qua the same action before the revisional court or appellate proceedings regarding the action. 10. The proceedings under Section 38 of the Act are essentially independent of any other action, which might have been taken qua the conduct of the Members of the Panchayati Raj Institution and irrespective of pendency of any criminal case qua the same action before the revisional court or appellate proceedings regarding the action. The proceedings under Section 38 of the Act are not affected by such pendency and it cannot be said that on account of such pendency, the initiation of proceedings under Section 38 of the Act are without jurisdiction. 11. The Divisional Commissioner complying with the requirement of the provisions of the Act has issued notices to the petitioners; it is open for the petitioners to raise all the pleas available to them including the plea raised in the present writ petitions before the Divisional Commissioner, who after due consideration would reach to a conclusion on the said plea raised by the petitioners qua the inquiry report submitted by the Additional District Collector. In any case, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents in issuing notices (Annexures-10 and 12) require any interference by this Court on the plea/ground raised by the petitioners. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed. Petitioner Dismissed.