Rajasthan High Court: In a civil writ petition, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18-03-2025 of his removal from the post of Administrator, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while setting aside the order, held that before passing the removal order against the petitioner while exercising the powers contained under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (‘the Act of 1994’), the mandatory procedure contained under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (‘Panchayati Raj Rules’) was not followed. The Court further observed that in a democratic setup, an elected representative is the voice of the people to whom he represents, hence, much care and caution are required to be taken while removing him from the post he is holding.
Background
The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Panwar, Panchayat Samiti Devli, District Tonk, and after completion of his term as Sarpanch, he was appointed as Administrator and was allowed to hold the said post. The petitioner was placed under suspension under the Act of 1994, in contemplation of the enquiry initiated against him. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, against which he submitted his reply. The petitioner was removed from the post of Administrator by the order dated 18-03-2025, without following the mandate contained under Rule 22 of the Panchayati Raj Rules. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused Rule 22 of the Panchayati Raj Rules and noted that before taking any action under Section 38 of the Act of 1994, the State Government is required to follow the mandate contained under the said Rule. As per Sub-Clause 3 of Rule 22, an Enquiry Officer is required to be appointed, who shall consider documentary and oral evidence as well as all relevant material regarding the charge, and thereafter, the opportunity of cross-examination with the witnesses is required to be given to the other side. Lastly, a report is required to be prepared for concluding whether any representative is found to be involved in any financial irregularity for the charges levelled against him.
The Court, after perusing the entire record of the enquiry report conducted by the Block Development Officer, observed that without recording the evidence of witnesses and without considering the other evidence available on the record, the order of removal was passed simply based on the charge-sheet and reply submitted by the petitioner. The Court noted that during arguments, it was admitted by the State counsel that the statements of the witnesses were not recorded, and other documents were not considered before passing the order impugned.
The Court noted that in a democratic setup, an elected representative is the voice of the people to whom he represents, hence, much care and caution are required to be taken while removing him from the post he is holding. In a democracy governed by the Rule of Law, once an incumbent is elected to an office in a democratic institution, he is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his conduct is found to be disgraceful or he has misused his power and position involving any kind of activities which warrant his removal from his post in terms of Section 38 of the Act of 1994. However, before removing him from his post for any of the charges levelled against him, the provisions contained under Rule 22 of the Panchayati Raj Rules are required to be followed.
The Court observed that in the instant case, the above procedure was not followed, and only a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, and after considering his reply to be non-satisfactory, his removal order was passed. The respondents were supposed to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, in terms of Rule 22 of the Panchayati Raj Rules.
In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court set-aside the order dated 18-03-2025. The Court directed the State to pass fresh orders in terms of Rule 22 of the Panchayati Raj Rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The Court observed that in numerous cases, orders for the removal of Panchayat Members have been passed without adhering to the mandatory provisions and procedures outlined in Rule 22 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, and it appears that Enquiry Officers are not well-versed with these provisions, leading to errors in their orders. The Court directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Divisional Commissioners, and District Collectors to inform all Chief Executive Officers of Panchayat Samitis about the importance of strictly following Rule 22 of the Panchayati Raj Rules.
[Puranmal Verma v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5608/2025, decided on 14/07/2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Suresh Pareek with Praveen Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent: Aditya Sharma for Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC
