Kan Singh, J. - (1.) THESE are two writ petitions by a Sarpanch under Article 226 of the Constitution and as they raise common questions, they were heard together. They can conveniently be disposed of by on judgment.
(2.) ON 31 -8 -70 two orders were passed by the Government removing Shri Rewat Dan Sarpanch, from the Office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mathama. In writ petition No. 2027 of 1970, the order of removal is Ex. 4 and in the other writ petition it is Ex. 8. The orders were passed in consequence of the inquiries held against the Sarpanch. I may narrate the facts of the writ petition No. 2027 of 1970 for appreciating the points arising for consideration. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram panchayat, Mathura in the year 1960 for the first time. He was again elected as a Sarpanch at the next elections held in the year 1965. He states that as he belonged to Praja Socialist Party and as he had contested the Assembly elections against a Congress candidate, he incurred the displeasure of the ruling party. The Panchas of the Gram Panchayat, according to him, were persuaded to put obstructions in the smooth working of the Panchayat. An inquiry was started against his in accordance with Rule 21(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules 1961, hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules", by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Phalodi. On 9 -2 -66 the petitioner had been placed under suspension. The petitioner challenged the order of his suspension in this Court by writ petition No. 150 of 1966 and that order was set aside. The Inquiry commenced against him by the Sub -Divisional Officer, (sic), resulted in an order of removal, but on a review petition filed by the petitioner the Government set aside that order and the petitioner was reinstated. Thereafter in the year 1968 the petitioner was served with a fresh charge sheet, an was again suspended on 7 -3 -68. As the inquiry was not being stared while the order of suspension was being continued, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was No. 436 of 1968. This writ petition was allowed by this Court on 29 -7 -68, and the Government was directed to conclude the inquiry within three weeks, failing which the order of suspension would stand revoked. It is not necessary to recapitulate everything that petitioner has asserted in the writ petition suffice it to say that the impugned orders were passed in pursuance of the charges served on the petitioner on 26 -7 -66. Ex. 1 was a notice calling upon the petitioner to file his reply to the charges by 26 -5 -66 and Ex. 2 were the charges. Charge No. 1 was to the effect that in the order sheet of a case for the sale of Abadi land after the order dated 27 -6 -1965, was recorded the petitioner had mace an interpolation by inserting a sentence that the land had been sold & he had thereby abused his position as a Sarpanch, Charge No. 2 was that the Sarpanch and sold 108 Sq. Gaz of land only for a sum of Rs. 3/ - and this was irregular, as no auction had been held by him. The third charge was that he had disobeyed a stay order made by the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti of the area. An Enquiry Office was appointed by the Govt. for making the inquiry & on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer the Government gave a notice to the Sarpanch to show cause why he be not removed from Office and thereafter the Government passed the order of removal, Ex. 4 on 31 -8 -70. The petitioner states that this order of removal was illegal because : (1) the matter has not been examined by the Government properly on a preliminary inquiry as required by Rule 21 of the Rules (2) the petitioner was not given a reasonable hearing as envisaged by Rule 22(1) of the Rules which lays down that the State Government or the authority referred to in Sub -rule (3) of Rule 20 shall consider the findings of the inquiry Officer, afford reasonable hearing to the person charged and thereafter pass such order as the Government in the Local -Self Government Department, but the case was adjourned from time to time. He was finally called upon to appear for hearing before he the passing of the impugned order, but he had written a postcard to the Deputy Minister praying that the hearing be held at Jodhpur as the petitioner being a patient of Asthama was not able to under take the journey to Jaipur at the time. He added that in the eve of the case being not taken at Jodhpur he would be asking a chance to appear before the Deputy Minister at Jaipur inspite of his difficulties. The petitioner further States that he did not receive any reply to his postcard and he was eventually visited with the impugned order. The petitioner, besides challenging the order on the ground that it was passed on contravention of Rule 22 of the Rules as well as in violation of the principles of natural justice, submits that the order is not sustainable as it is based on no evidence and further it is not a speaking order in the sense that no reasons are contained in the order. Further the petitioner submits that the order was discriminatory in that he has been singled out for punishment although the other Panchas too were signatories to the order in respect of which the charge was framed against the petitioner.
(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed by the State. It is denied that the order of petitioner's removal was illegal on any of the grounds taken by the petitioner. It is denied that the Government had any animus against the petitioner. It is submitted that the on Shivdan had applied for the grant of land and in that case one Jaikishen Champalal had filed an objection against the issue of Patta. Therefore, the Panchayat was not authorized to issue Patta to Shivdan without following the procedure laid down by Rule 269 of the Rules. It was submitted that on a complaint being received against the petitioner a preliminary inquiry was held under orders of the Collector and a respect of the preliminary inquiry was submitted to the Government and it was thereafter that the Government served the petitioner with the charges and the regular inquiry was held. On the basis of the inquiry report the Government gave a show cause notice to the petitioner why he be not removed, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice regarding his removal. He was afforded a number of opportunities to attend the hearing and have his say, but the petitioner never appeared before the Deputy Minister on one pretext or the other pleading illness. He never produced any medical certificate regarding his alleged illness and after each and every hearing he was informed to appear a the next hearing it is denied that the order of removal was no based on any evidence. As regarding the plea about contravention of Rule 22 of the Rules or the principles of natural justice for that matter, it is maintained that the was no violation of the relevant rules or the principles of natural justice in this behalf as according to the State, the petitioner had been afforded ample opportunity to have his say in the matter. It was further submitted that the petitioner never asked for the inquiry report and, therefore, he cannot legitimately make any grievance of the non supply of the copy of the inquiry report to him. According to the State, therefore, there was not prejudice caused to the petitioner and there is no case for any interference.;