Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mukesh Kumar Gurjar vs State (Rural Develp & Panchayati) Ors on 15 February, 2018
Author: K.S.Jhaveri
Bench: K.S.Jhaveri
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 135 / 2018
Mukesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Gopal Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village & Post Pachudala, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department of
Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur.
4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotputli, District Jaipur.
5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Paota, District
Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 15/02/2018
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of suspension of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Panchu Dala, Panchayat Samiti Kotputli, District Jaipur in view of the fact that the criminal proceedings have already initiated against him and charges have been framed u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC and Section 125A of Representation of People's (2 of 3) [SAW-135/2018] Act.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was elected Sarpanch of village Panchayat Pachudala in the year 2015 and since then he was performing his duties as per the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act 1994. It is alleged that one complaint has been filed by a rival candidate to the authority in the year 2015 against the appellant regarding his educational qualification which is pre- election disqualification. It is further submitted that after receiving the complaint, the Tehsildar Kotputli submitted a detailed inquiry report to the S.D.M. Kotputli who is electoral registering authority to the effect that as per the investigation, the appellant cleared the 8th class examination from Vinod Senior Secondary School, Gyanpura (Bansoor) in the session 2010-11 as regular student. On the basis of report submitted by Tehsildar, the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotputli sent a report to District Electoral Officer (Collector) Jaipur on 28.05.2015 recommending that appellant was qualified as per the requirement of Section 19 of the Act of 1994 to be elected as a Sarpanch.
2.1 On the basis of report submitted by SDM Kotputli, the District Electoral Officer (Collector) decided to drop the complaint against the appellant regarding educational qualification. However, simultaneously one FIR No. 177/2015 at Police Station Pragpura, District Jaipur (Rural) was registered against the appellant regarding forged marksheet of 8th class and bail application of the appellant has been allowed by Additional District and Session Judge and thereafter charge sheet has been filed by the police and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli Vide order (3 of 3) [SAW-135/2018] dated 27.04.2017 took the cognizance under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. and 125-A of Representation of the Peoples Act and charges have been framed.
3. While considering the case, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:-
"Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereafter 'the Act of 1994') empowers the State Government to suspend a Sarpanch, where he is charged by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence/s involving moral turpitude. It is not the petitioner's case that the power under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994 could not have been exercised against the petitioner despite the charges aforesaid having been framed and he put to trial thereon. That the charges framed relate to allegations prior to the election being held is of no event."
4. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. No interference is called for.
5. The appeal stands dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (K.S.JHAVERI)J. Brijesh 7.