SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste was elected as Sarpanch, is placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 14. 10. 99 (Annex. 5) passed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 38 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the Act' ).
(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Singhvi for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer way back in March, 1998 and only in the month of February, 1999, after a period of about one year, a notice along with a chargesheet was issued by the State Government against the petitioner. He submitted that reply to the notice was submitted by the petitioner on 26. 3. 1999 but the State Government did not take any action in the matter till 14. 10. 99, the day on which the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order at Annex. 5 without initiating any regular enquiry. He submitted that the election is due in the month of February, 2000, therefore, on the eve of the election, the petitioner is suspended merely because he is a Scheduled Caste per-son. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order of suspension be quashed and set aside. It is true that the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 27. 3. 98 (Annex. 1) by the Chief Executive Officer and the State Government issued notice dated 3. 2. 99 (Annex. 3) alongwith chargesheet after considering the undated reply of the petitioner (Annex. 2 ). It is also true that the petitioner submitted his reply to the notice and chargesheet on 26. 3. 99 (Annex. 4 ). It is also true that after nearly 7 months, the petitioner is placed under suspension. Ordinarily, the suspension should be resorted as early as possible but it depends upon facts of each case. In the instant case, the Chief Executive Officer had initially initiated preliminary enqui-ry in March, 1998 for as many as 9 serious charges of misappropriation, corruption etc. The same was replied on 27. 3. 98 by the petitioner. It is true that some time was taken by the State Government for issuing notice and submitting chargesheet against the petitioner but from the notice and chargesheet, it appears that as many as 19 charges of serious nature of corruption, misappropriation and misusing his powers as Sarpanch were levelled. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the State Government was not satisfied, therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14. 10. 99 i. e. after about 7 months of the receipt of the reply of the petitioner. Considering the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner, 7 months period in this case cannot be said to be a long period on which the suspen-sion order can be quashed. The submission of Mr. Singhvi that the petitioner being Scheduled Caste person is placed under suspension by the State Government has no substance. The person belonging to upper class or Scheduled caste does not matter in these type of cases as in my considered opinion, this type of persons belong to only one class i. e. class of corrupted persons. Hence, this submission of Mr. Singhvi on the facts of this case has no substance, therefore, rejected. Mr. Singhvi then submitted that there was a breach of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short `the Rules') in as much as the chargesheet was prepared by the Chief Executive Officer and the same was simply forwarded by the State Government to the petitioner. It is true that initially the preliminary enquiry was initiated by the Chief Executive Officer and after considering the reply of the petitioner (Annex. 2), the Chief Executive Officer signed the chargesheet but the same also bears the stamp of the State Government and it cannot be said that the chargesheet prepared by the Chief Executive Officer was simply forwarded by the State Government to the petitioner. From the notice at Annex. 3 dated 3. 2. 99 issued by the State Government, it is clear that there was a total application of mind on the part of the State Government and after considering the chargesheet signed by the Chief Executive Officer, the same was forwarded to the petitioner for his explanation. Thus, in my opinion, no breach of Rule 12 as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was committed in this case. Hence, this submission of Mr. Singhvi is also rejected. Mr. Singhvi then submitted that it was not stated in the notice that the pre-liminary enquiry was initiated at the instance of the State Government. This submission has no substance because the Chief Executive Officer who himself was fully satisfied and being the representative of the State, he can always initiate such preliminary enquiry on behalf of the State Government. Hence this submission is also rejected.
(3.) LAST submission was raised by Mr. Singhvi that unless and until the enquiry under Section 38 of the Act commences, a person cannot be placed under suspension. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the Division Bench of this Court in case of Bajrang Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1 ). He submitted that in this case, the petitioner is placed under suspension without valid enquiry initiated against him by the State Government. Section 38 (4) of the Act is reproduced for considering the above submission of Mr. Singhvi, which is as under:- " (4) The State Government may suspend any member including a chairperson or a deputy chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution against whom an enquiry has been initiated under sub-section (1) or against whom any criminal proceedings in regard to an offence involving moral turpitude is pending trial in a court of law and such person shall stand debarred from taking part in any act or proceeding of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned while being under such suspension. " The impugned order of suspension dated 14. 10. 1999 (Annexure 5) is very much clear where there is a reference to the abovementioned Section 38 (4) of the Act which clearly shows that the enquiry is already initiated against the petitioner and the very fact of issuance of the chargesheet shows that the enquiry was already initiated. I may state that learned counsel Mr. Singhvi has tried to reply upon only two paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Bajrang Lal's case but if we read the entire judgment as a whole, then it clearly appears that the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the suspension or-der in that case by observing that:- " It should not be forgotten that institution of Panchayats in Rajasthan requires careful and thorough supervision. The suspension of a Sarpanch under particular circumstances of a case may be considered necessary or desirable to save the Panchayat or its funds from being ruined or misappropriated. The elaborate procedure noted above is safeguard against the whimsical, capricious or irrelevant exercise of the powers of suspension by the State. After a preliminary report has been submitted and a prima facie case is made out against the delinquent elected officer, the State Government, after considering the merits of the case, is required to decide whether a charge sheet is to be served on the holder of the elective officer or not and if it finds that a prima facie case has been established and further considers that his continuance in office would not be in the public interest or in the interest of the Panchayat fund or the working of the Panchayat, the Government should be left free to exercise its control and if the case warrants a temporary removal of such an incumbent, then, after careful scrutiny of the preliminary report submitted before it, to suspend him. " ;