- (1.) THE Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, by a letter dated 5.3.2014 made a recommendation to the Municipal Board, Sheoganj to suspend the petitioner being involved in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Municipal Board in its meeting dated 21.5.2014 considered the recommendation and resolved not to suspend the petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk, but to transfer him to a post not concerned with the work of issuing No Objection Certificate for raising construction in municipal area. The resolution aforesaid was taken keeping in view the idea to utilise services of the petitioner by keeping him on a post from where he may have not been in position to impress the inquiry/investigation going against him.
(2.) THE resolution aforesaid came to be rescinded under an order dated 14.8.2014 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Local Self Government, Jaipur exercising powers under Section 327(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2009'). Subsequent thereto, the Director (Legal), Department of Local Self Government by a communication dated 19.9.2014 instructed the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sheoganj to place the appellant petitioner under suspension and also to change his headquarter. Acting upon the communication dated 19.9.2014 read with order dated 14.8.2014 the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sheoganj placed the petitioner under suspension and changed his headquarter from Municipal Board, Sheoganj to the office of the Deputy Director (Regional), Department of Local Self Government, Jodhpur. Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid as well as the order dated 14.8.2014 and communication dated 19.9.2014 the petitioner preferred a petition for writ with assertion that the powers under Section 327(2) of the Act of 2009 could have not been exercised by the State Government without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Municipal Board, Sheoganj and without examining the record relevant.
(3.) LEARNED Single Bench by order dated 14.10.2014 dismissed the writ petition by opining that "if a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act is registered against the petitioner and a resolution has been passed contrary to basic principal of law for not granting prosecution sanction then the State while exercising supervisory power can cancel such resolution passed by the Municipal Board which is contrary to law". The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that instant one is not a case for grant of prosecution sanction as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but for exercise of powers under Section 327(2) of the Act of 2009 by the State Government. According to learned counsel for the appellant the State Government passed the order rescinding resolution of the Municipal Board in violation of the procedure given under Section 327 itself. The Director (Legal) was having no jurisdiction to instruct the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sheoganj to place the appellant petitioner under suspension and the suspension of the petitioner could have been effected by his appointing authority or an authority to whom the appointing authority is subordinate, but in the instant matter the appointing authority without application of its own mind acted under instructions of the Director (Legal), Department of Local Self Government, Jodhpur, that clearly indicates abdication of powers. While opposing the appeal and defending the order passed by learned Single Bench, Dr. Pratistha Dave submitted that the petitioner appellant was found involved in corrupt activities and, therefore, his suspension was highly desirable. The State Government considering this aspect of the matter rescind the resolution undertaken by the Municipal Board, Sheoganj.;