Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2656 (RAJ)

Kanchan Solanki v. State of Rajasthan

2019-10-04

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. Calling the suspension order dated 18.9.2019 in question, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his argument to the violation of principles of natural justice. 2. In the present case for the purpose of considering the points canvassed, suffice it to note that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.8.2019 requiring her to submit her response within a period of ten days. The notice was issued in furtherance of a preliminary inquiry got conducted against the petitioner. 3. Upon receipt of the notice dated 29.8.2019, the petitioner submitted a preliminary reply dated 6.9.2019, in which copies of certain documents were sought and request to grant time to file reply was made, without joining the issue on merit. 4. It is an admitted case that the petitioner was supplied the requisite/desired documents on 12.9.2019. No sooner, did the petitioner receive the relevant documents, than she sent her reply by registered post to the respondent no. 2. As per the track report, the reply came to be received by the respondents on 17.9.2019. 5. Mr. Bhandari invited attention of the Court towards note-sheet dated 13.7.2019, whereby the respondents have decided to hold judicial inquiry against the petitioner, while observing thus: ^^Jherh dapu lksyadh v/;{k uxj ikfydk f'koxat dks muds }kjk pkgs x;s nLrkostksa dh Nk;kizfr;ka funs'kky; }kjk fnukad 09-09-2019 rFkk uxjikfydk e.My f'koxat }kjk Hkh fnukad 12-09-2019 dks miyC/k djok nh xbZ gSA mijkUr Jherh dapu lksyadh }kjk vkfnukad rd Li"Vhdj.k uksfVl dk tokc izLrqr ugha dj jktdh; vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk dh xbZ gSA vr% Jherh dapu lksyadh v/;{kk uxjikfydk f'koxat ds fo:) jktLFkku uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e 2009 dh /kkjk 39 ¼3½ ds vUrxZr U;kf;d tkap djok;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA i=koyh voyksdukFkZ ,oa vkns'kkFkZ izLrqr gSA^^ 6. Mr. Bhandari argued that despite noticing that the relevant documents were made available to the petitioner on 12.9.2019, on 13.9.2019 itself, the respondents have proceeded to initiate judicial inquiry against the petitioner. Consequent to judicial inquiry, they have mechanically decided to suspend the petitioner, which has culminated into impugned order dated 18.9.2019, whereby the petitioner has been formally placed under suspension. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order passed by the respondents placing the petitioner under suspension is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Consequent to judicial inquiry, they have mechanically decided to suspend the petitioner, which has culminated into impugned order dated 18.9.2019, whereby the petitioner has been formally placed under suspension. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order passed by the respondents placing the petitioner under suspension is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. 8. He pointed out that on receipt of documents relevant, the petitioner had sent her response/reply, which has been received by the respondents on 17.9.2019 and before that, she had also sent a copy of the reply vide email on 16.9.2019. 9. Ms. Borana, learned AAG argued that the petitioner's conduct has always been non-cooperative and she has tired to protract the proceedings and for one reason or the other, she was even avoiding service of notice. Since she did not file any response, the respondents were left with no other option, but to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the material available with them. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. Without making any observation about the correctness of the allegations and merit of the case set up against the petitioner, this Court, has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of suspension is violative of principles of natural justice. 12. By way of notice dated 29.8.2019, the respondents have elicited the petitioner's response; the petitioner was provided desired documents on 12.9.2019, immediately whereafter, she sent her reply/response to the show cause notice issued to her. 13. The respondents despite noticing that relevant documents have been provided to her on 12.9.2019, have taken a decision to initiate judicial inquiry against her, without even waiting for her response/reply. The respondents should at least have provided breathing time to the petitioner, so that her reply/response could be reached at their office. 14. Indisputably, the petitioner's reply/response has been received by the respondents on 17.9.2019, which she has sent through registered post on 13.9.2019. 15. In considered opinion of this Court, the manner in which, the respondents have proceeded, cannot be countenanced by any Court of law, particularly when the proceedings are being taken against an elected representative. The respondents were required to provide at least a week's time to the petitioner to file reply her reply/response, after the documents were provided to her. 15. In considered opinion of this Court, the manner in which, the respondents have proceeded, cannot be countenanced by any Court of law, particularly when the proceedings are being taken against an elected representative. The respondents were required to provide at least a week's time to the petitioner to file reply her reply/response, after the documents were provided to her. Instead of providing sufficient time, the respondents have decided to initiate judicial inquiry against petitioner vide order dated 13.9.2019 itself, which has rendered the requirement of issuing show cause notice as nugatory. The impugned order has thus infringed petitioner's fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. The impugned order dated 13.9.2019 and consequential order of suspension dated 18.9.2019 being violative of principles of natural justice are thus, quashed and set aside. 17. The respondents shall consider the petitioner's reply, which has been received by them on 17.9.2019 and pass reasoned order while objectively considering petitioner's reply. 18. The respondents shall pass a fresh order within a period of seven days from today and serve a copy thereof to the petitioner forthwith. 19. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. 20. Needless to observe that as a consequence of quashment/setting aside of the suspension order dated 18.09.2019, the respondent shall handover charge of Sarpanch to the petitioner, forthwith. 21. Needless also is to observe, that the respondents shall be free to pass appropriate order(s) in case they find that judicial inquiry against the petitioner is warranted. 22. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.