Sardar Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1558/2022 [@ SLP [C] NO.16820/2021]

SARDAR MEENA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. An FIR was registered on 12.05.2021 by the

complainant Ravi Kumar Meena against the appellant who

is a Sarpanch of Gola ka Bas alleging that the said

Sarpanch along with 8-10 other associates, with the

intention of committing the offence of robbery, loot

and murder came on a vehicle in the night armed with

weapons. They committed offence of house trespass and

with intention to cause fatal injury even started

indiscriminate firing. This has allegedly caused

injuries on several parts of the body of the

complainant. On the registration of the FIR, the police

started investigation and took the appellant into

custody. The endeavour of the appellant to procure bail

from the trial Court did not succeed but ultimately the Signature Not Verified High Court granted bail. The charge sheet is stated to Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2022.02.26 13:27:53 IST Reason: have been filed post investigation and is awaiting the

application of the mind by the trial Court concerned on

whether there is sufficient material to frame charges. 2

3. The aforesaid proceedings resulted in the

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh seeking

information about the FIR and further materials.

Successive reports were sent by the police. The

Development Officer wrote a letter on 24.05.2021 to the

Chief Executive Officer, District Parishad, Alwar

intimating the latest factual scenario. He in turn

shared the findings of his enquiry along with factual

reports received from the Police Station, Tahla with

the Governing Secretary and Commissioner, Rural

Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government

of Rajasthan on 24.05.2021. A preliminary enquiry was

initiated under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 22(2) of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and a charge sheet

was issued on 16.06.2021. The appellant was suspended

on 16.06.2021 pending the enquiry.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the

appellant in substance is that this is an endeavour by

the opponent who lost the elections to the appellant as

the complainant is the son of this opponent. He also

seeks to rely on the bail order to show that there was

no case found out against the appellant. We may note

that the learned counsel for the respondent, on the

other hand, has referred to the order of the trial

Court refusing bail. We have dealt with this aspect at 3

the inception because we do believe that this line of

submission from either side is really not germane to

the controversy in question. We may add that the grant

of bail is only as a result of investigations being

complete and if we take the bail order as a reason for

no prima facie case, it would put the law on its head

more so, as we have been emphasizing that there is no

reason to keep people in custody once investigation is

complete unless there are heinous offences and

propensity of the accused to indulge in further crime

or influence witnesses.

5. We now come to the meat of the matter which is

Section 38 which refers to the removal and suspension.

We reproduce the relevant portion as under:

“38. Removal and Suspension.(1) The State Government may, by order in writing and after giving him and opportunity of being heard and making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary, remove from office any member including a Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution, who-

(a) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting as such; or

(b) is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of duties or any disgraceful conduct:

xxx xxx xxx

(4) The State Government may suspend any member including a Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson 4

of a Panchayati Raj Institution against whom an enquiry has been initiated under Sub-sec.(1) or against whom any criminal proceedings in regard to an offense 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.”

6. It is respondents’ own case that they had made

their preliminary inquiry not solely based on the

police report (as set out in the counter affidavit) and

found out a prima facie case of “disgraceful conduct”.

7. The State Government has power to suspend a

person in terms of Clause (4) of Section 38. The said

provision has two limbs: a) against whom an inquiry had

been initiated under Sub-Section (1) and; b) or against

whom criminal proceedings in regard to an offence

involving moral turpitude is pending trial in the Court

of law.

8. It is the say of the respondent that the action

is being taken against appellant under the first part

of the said provision.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to

contend that a reading of the order of suspension dated

16.06.2021 only refers to the initiation of the

criminal proceedings in pursuance to the FIR but then

on a bare reading of it, it does show that what is 5

attributed for suspension is a conduct in terms of

Clause (1). We may add that the suspension order

cannot be said to be the most happily worded one. It

is in these circumstances that we find that the ratio

of the judgment in Ajit Singh & Anr. v. Financial

Commissioner and Secretary to Government and Anr.1 -

would not apply as in that case, the formation of

opinion of the Deputy Commissioner was found to be

absent.

10. We do recognize an aspect of the submission of

the learned counsel for the appellant that in cases of

political rivalry, the process should not be permitted

to be misused, more so, as the principles of service

jurisprudence would not apply, as there is no question

of restitution to the aggrieved party post

determination of his conduct as the period for which

the Sarpanch had to act, will not be restored to him.

It is this submission which has weighed with us in

considering what would be the appropriate direction to

be passed in the present case.

11. We, at the cost of repetition, emphasize that

the own stand of the respondent is that the action is

based on the enquiry held by the concerned officer in

pursuance to the FIR. The sequiter would be that the

proceedings in the criminal case would not weigh at

1(2009) 16 SCC 308 6

this stage in determining the conduct of the appellant

but would be dependent on the material presented before

the competent authority against the appellant. That

being the position, the suspension can also not

continue in an ad infinitum manner, more so, when it

has not to await any criminal proceedings.

12. We thus are of the view that it is necessary to

bring an end to the proceedings initiated under Section

38(1) of the said Act at the earliest and it is stated

that the pleadings are complete. We are thus, of the

view that the respondent should conclude the

proceedings on or before 30th April, 2022 and it will be

the bounden duty of the appellant to cooperate with

those proceedings so as not to delay the same. The

result would be that the suspension order would

continue to be operational till 30th April, 2022 alone.

13. Needless to say that it will be for the

respondent(s) to establish the charge against the

appellant de hors the registration of the FIR on the

principles of such proceedings and not on the

principles of criminal proceedings of proof beyond

reasonable doubts.

7

14. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

leaving parties to bear their own costs.

…………………………………………...J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

…………………………………………...J. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 22, 2022.

8

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.6 SECTION XV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16820/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-09-2021 in DBSAW No. 633/2021 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur)

SARDAR MEENA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 22-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, AOR Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Amitabh Kumar Chaubey, AAG Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the reportable signed order.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

[Signed reportable order is placed on the file]