PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of suspension Annexure P/7 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 25. 6. 2003. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the basis of two fold arguments. First argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short `the Rules') provides that before any action in initiated against the petitioner, the opinion is required to be framed by the State Government and that opinion can only be based on the basis of the preliminary enquiry which admittedly was not held in the present case. Therefore, there being no basis available to the State Government to frame opinion, the enquiry could not have been initiated against the petitioner. That being the position, the initiation of enquiry itself is bad in the eye of law. Consequently, no order of suspension could have been passed against the petitioner. Second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a criminal case reportedly made against the petitioner. The case involves a fact of acceptance of gratification to the tune of Rs. 1400/ -. There was a raid conducted and the petitioner was apprehended by he Anti- Corruption Department. If domestic enquiry is held in relation to those facts, then the petitioner will suffer a great prejudice at the criminal trial. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be subjected for departmental enquiry because that will jeopardise the defence of the petitioner before the Criminal Court. Thus, it has been prayed that the order Annexure-P/7 should be quashed. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. R. P. Vyas, appearing for the State has submitted that both the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not valid enough to annual order Annexure-P-7. According to the learned counsel for the State, Rules 22, Sub-rule (2) clearly makes a mention that State Government has to frame an opinion either on the basis of the report received after a preliminary enquiry, or otherwise. The term "or otherwise" has a definite connotation. It is distinct and separate from the consideration of the preliminary enquiry report. Thus, the legislative intent was expressed in clear terms that the State Government for the purposes of framing opinion can made the basis, either to the preliminary enquiry or otherwise, if there are circumstances to indicate that there was material available against the person. The opinion of the State Government in this background of allegation of acceptance of illegal gratification, is sufficient to indicate that the petitioner has been found guilty of the disgraceful conduct while accepting the amount of illegal gratification. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of preliminary enquiry, initiation of enquiry is bad in the eye of law, cannot red handed by the Anti Corruption Department for a disgraceful conduct. Considering the report of the Anti Corruption Department which is against the petitioner, the State desired that it is a fit case to initiate and enquiry into the disgraceful conduct, which the petitioner is alleged to have committed by accepting bribe and thus, it cannot be said that enquiry was initiated without there being proper foundation.
(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in cases where there is a criminal case pending on the same facts, departmental enquiry should not be held, also cannot be accepted. THE cases on which the petitioner has placed reliance relate to the government servants. In the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the domestic enquiry can proceed. In some cases, it has been said that such enquiries should not be held. Such views have been expressed on facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, whether the petitioner accepted the bribe or not, and he has a defence as he alleges. Whether a case is made out for accepting bribe is made out or not will be gone into at the trial in criminal case. Nonetheless facts are not complicated. The facts are plain and simple. The rate fixed for the plot was Rs. 1000/- but the petitioner accepted Rs. 1400/- which is illegal gratification and then he was caught red-handed by the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau. According to the learned counsel for the State, in this case, any expression of defence at this juncture would not be in the interest of justice. This is not a justifiable approach. Prima facie acceptance of bribe can be seen. Thus, learned counsel for the State has emphasised that none of the grounds mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is made out, therefore, the suspension order against the petitioner is just and proper. I have considered the rival submissions. ;