ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Under challenge is the order dated 24-3-2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Jaipur suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of village Karad, Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a duly elected Sarpanch reflective of popular will and she could not have been suspended mechanically. He submitted that the only way for removal of the petitioner was by way of duly constituted election petition. Counsel submitted that even otherwise the petitioner has not yet been found guilty of any misconduct post her election as Sarpanch as per an enquiry conducted under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994') read with Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1996'). And when the petitioner cannot be removed as Sarpanch by the State Government for an alleged pre election disqualification she cannot be suspended therefore even if charged by a court of criminal jurisdiction in respect thereof. It was submitted that framing of a charge in a criminal trial is not the end of the matter, the burden to prove guilt is on the prosecution. And an elected sarpanch cannot be suspended and denied right to do public service for which she has been elected only for being charged for offences. It was submitted that in any event charges under Section 420, 464, 467, 468 and 120 IPC are not in respect of offence involving moral turpitude.
(3.) Mr. Krishnaveer Singh appearing on behalf of Mr. Anurag Sharma, AAG for the State submitted that the petitioner has been suspended by resort to the State's power under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994, inasmuch as charges for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC have been framed against the petitioner, all of which entail moral turpitude. He submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature. She has been charged for having used forged and fabricated mark-sheet of passing class VIII to supply the requisite minimum educational qualification to contest election for the post of Sarpanch. This court should not countenance exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction where case of forgery is prima facie made out against the petitioner-as in the instant case. Mr. Krishnaveer Singh submitted that the petitioner has no moral authority to hold the post of Sarpanch and to challenge the impugned order. An elected representative cannot be allowed to continue in office with taint as it would otherwise be destructive of democracy. It was submitted that charge for offence under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468 and 120B IPC entail moral turpitude.;