Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or 6.2.04 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order of suspension dated 29.1.2004 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent (State of Rajasthan through the Avar Sachiv (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur) under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) by which the petitioner was placed under suspension during the pendency of enquiry pending under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1994 be quashed and set aside as on that date no enquiry was pending against the petitioner.
(2.) The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kapurisar, Panchayat Samiti Loonkaransar, Dist. Bikaner. (ii) Further case of the petitioner is that since in the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly, 2003, the petitioner had supported the candidate of Congress party from Loonkaransar constituency and the Government was formed by BJP, therefore, his political opponents were trying to dislodge the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. (iii) Further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension through order dated 29.1.2004 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent (State of Rajasthan through Avar Sachiv, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur) and this order dated 29.1.2004 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent (State of Rajasthan through Avar Sachiv, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur) has been challenged in this writ petition.
(3.) In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1994 can be said to be initiated after framing of the definite charges against the petitioner as provided under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1996) and in absence of that the suspension order dated 29.1.2004 (Annex.1) which was passed under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994 is perse illegal as when the impugned order dated 29.1.2004 (Annex.1) was passed, charges in respect of that enquiry were not framed against the petitioner nor the same were communicated to the petitioner and hence the impugned order dated 29.1.2004 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent (State of Rajasthan through Avar Sachiv, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur) is illegal and is liable to be set aside.;