ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner was suspended by resort to Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereafter 'Act of 1994') vide order dated 27.6.2017 for reason of charges being framed against him by the trial court, i.e. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Lalsot, District Dausa under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 198 and 120B IPC in cr. Case no. 188/2016 on 18.5.2017.
(2.) Mr. Inder Raj Saini appearing for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 10.10.2017 Addl. Sessions Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa in Cr. Revision No. 34/2017 at the instance of the petitioner has quashed the said charges dated 18.5.2017 framed by the trial court and remanded the matter to it for consideration afresh. Mr. Inder Raj Saini submitted that the very foundation of the suspension order dated 27.6.2017 having thus been taken away by the revising court's order dated 10.10.2017, the order of suspension dated 27.6.2017 cannot sustain and should have been immediately revoked. Yet despite over two months having lapsed since passing of the order dated 10.10.2017 quashing the charges against the petitioner, the petitioner is still under suspension for reasons of the respondent's arbitrary omission to revoke the order and allow the petitioner, an elected Sarpanch to discharge duties of her representative office. Mr. Inder Raj Saini further submitted that the issue in respect of which the charges were framed relates to the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch allegedly using forged documents pertaining to her educational qualification to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch. He submitted that in respect of the alleged pre-election disqualifications for contesting on the post of Sarpanch, it has been held by this Court in the case of Sameera Bano (Smt.) v. State Of Rajasthan And Ors. reported in RLW 2007 (2) Raj 1674 that no statutory inquiry under Section 38 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 can be initiated in regard thereto. He submitted that in these circumstances, the petitioner can also not be suspended for reason of a statutory enquiry under Section 38 of the Act of 1994 with regard to the alleged wrong doing attributable to her for the period prior to her election to the post of Sarpanch.
(3.) Mr. Anurag Sharma, AAG appearing with Mr. Krishanveer Singh for the respondents-State submitted that the order dated 10.10.2017 passed in revision petition no. 34/2017 by Addl. Sessions Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa quashing the charges framed against the petitioner by the trial court on 18.5.2017 is not an order absolving the petitioner of all wrong doing. He submitted that the trial court has been required by the revisional court to pass an order fresh on the charge against the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Sharma, AAG submitted that in these circumstances the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a benefit of technical error in the framing of charge against her leading to the charge being quashed. He submitted that charges against the petitioner are very likely to be framed again in the near future if the petitioner does not obstruct the proceedings before the trial court by seeking adjournments. Heard. Considered.;