Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 238 (RAJ)

Ajay Dixit v. Sushma Bairwa

2015-01-27

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
Judgment : 1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant. 2. The application for a leave to appeal is allowed. 3. The applicant-appellant had filed a complaint against Smt.Susma Bairwa, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Panchyat Samiti Umerain, Tehsil Malakheda, District Alwar, on which after enquiries she was suspended. Her term as Sarpanch will come to an end with the constitution of new Gram Panchayats in January – February 2015, for which the elections are in progress. 4. Smt. Susma Bairwa was suspended by an order under section 38(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 after an enquiry, in which serious irregularities were found against her. A larger enquiry, has been recommended by the Panchayat Raj Department, vide an order dated 17.12.2014. 5. The application, filed by the applicant for impleadment, has been rejected, with permission to the applicant to supply all those documents, which may seek to rely to be considered by the Department of the State, with liberty to the State Government to defend the order. 6. A complainant, in a matter where an elected representative to the public office, is alleged to have committed irregularities, which amount to misuse of office, and consequently the charges of corruption are under enquiry, is a proper party, if not a necessary party to the proceedings. There may be no lis as such between the applicant and the Sarpanch, but that in absence of the applicant, it is possible that the Court may not get desired assistance, to consider challenge to the order of the suspension. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that it is only for the State Government to defend the order. 7. We are of the view that the liberty to supply the documents to the concerned Department in the larger enquiry, will not be sufficient, inasmuch as, the order of suspension is under challenge in the writ petition, and in which it is stated that she has concealed the material facts. 8. The Special Appeal is allowed to the extent that the applicant-appellant will be allowed to intervene in the matter, and to bring on record the documents, which may be necessary for deciding the writ petition against the order of suspension.