Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 16.8.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dtd. 13.8.2002 (Annex. 6) passed by the Additional Secretary (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which the petitioner who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jasrasar, Panchayat Samiti, Nokha was suspended under the provisions of Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 on the ground that against the order of acquittal dtd. 25.1.2002 (Annex. 2) passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bikaner, the State appeal has been admitted by the High Court, and notice dtd. 29.7.2002 (Annex. 4) issued by Additional Secretary (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur and Charge -sheet (Annex. 5) issued against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jasrasar on 31.1.2000. (ii) That a case under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was registered against the petitioner for possessing illicit opium and in that case, the petitioner was arrested on 23.2.2001 and remained in judicial custody. Thereafter he was suspended from the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jasrasar through order dtd. 23.5.2001 (Annex. 1) passed by the Additional Secretary (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur. (iii) That in the said criminal case, charges were framed against the petitioner for offence under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act and after the trial the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bikaner through its judgment and order dtd. 25.1.2002 (Annex. 2) acquitted the petitioner of the charges framed against him. After passing of order of acquittal dtd. 25.1.2002 (Annex. 2), the earlier order of suspension dtd. 23.5.2001 (Annex. 1) was withdrawn and the petitioner was reinstated through order dtd. 18.3.2002 (Annex. 3) passed by the Additional Secretary (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur. (iv) Thereafter the petitioner received a notice dtd. 29.7.2002 (Annex. 4) passed by the Additional Secretary (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur whereby the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation on respect of the charge mentioned in the charge -sheet (Annex. 5) (v) It may be stated here that the charge levelled against the petitioner was that the petitioner remained in judicial custody for long time on account of keeping illicit opium. (vi) That before the petitioner could submit his explanation, the petitioner received an order dtd. 13.8.2002 (Annex. 6) passed by the Additional Secretary (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which he was put under suspension on the ground that against the judgment and order dtd. 25.1.2002 (Annex. 2) a State appeal was preferred before this Court and the same was admitted by this Court and, therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension. (vii) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dtd. 29.7.2002 (Annex. 4), charge -sheet (Annex. 5) and order dtd. 13.8.2002 (Annex. 6). In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994, a person could be suspended when any criminal proceedings is pending trial in a court of law or in other words, during the pendency of trial, a person could be suspended and since in the present case, the trial was over and the petitioner was acquitted, therefore, the order of suspension dtd. 13.8.2002 (Annex. 6) passed by the Additional Secretary (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur is in violation of provisions of Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994 and should be set aside.
(3.) A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it has been submitted by them that the order of suspension dtd. 13.8.2002 (Annex. 6) was rightly passed by the Additional Secretary, (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur and no interference is called for in the order dtd. 13.8.2002 (Annex. 6) and hence this writ petition should be dismissed.;