1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1649/08 Nemi Chand Kumawat vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 22/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri G.K. Garg for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed challenging the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 24.1.2008. The petitioner is Elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bain, Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. Charges levelled against the petitioner are to the effect that in spite of the fact that ward panches submitted the report in favour of issuance of patta to one Banshidhar Balai, the petitioner did not issue patta in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner is result of malafides on the part of the respondents. Earlier also, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 2 14.11.2007 for issuance of patta in favour of one person even though such patta was issued by him under the repeated directions of Block Development Officer. No action was taken by the respondents against the Block Development Officer and only petitioner was singled out for being suspended. This Court by its order dated 11.1.2008 passed in earlier writ petition of the petitioner namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9646 observed that the authorities are required to take into consideration this aspect of the matter and directed that enquiry against the petitioner be concluded by 31.1.2008 by providing opportunity to all concerned. It was observed that if the enquiry is not concluded by 31.1.2008 then the operation of suspension order would automatically come to an end. When the enquiry was not shown to have been concluded, this Court in earlier writ petition by order dated 1.2.2008 passed the order whereby operation and effect of the order of suspension dated 14.11.2007 was stayed. Learned counsel argued that in order to create another disciplinary matter 3 against the petitioner, now this charge sheet has been issued and the respondents might even against place the petitioner under suspension. Learned counsel also argued that the charge sheet has been issued on absolutely unfounded assumption that the petitioner is deliberately not issuing patta to Banshidhar Balai. While earlier committee of three panches recommended issuance of patta in favour of Banshidhar Balai, subsequently nine panches of the Gram Panchayat have on joint inspection of the disputed site submitted a fresh report on 17.8.2007 wherein the land in dispute, as stated to be not falling into his share and recommended that patta should not be issued for this land. Even then the respondents have now issued charge sheet to the petitioner to create another disciplinary matter. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material forming part of the record, especially the report submitted by the panches, I do not find any good reason to entertain this writ petition 4 because if the report of 9 panches is there on record, there is no reason to presume that the Divisional Commissioner would not objectively applying his mind to such report. When nine panches have recommended for issuance of patta of the land in dispute, the petitioner possible could not have issued patta. But this is a matter to be taken note of by the Divisional Commissioner. Moreover, the impugned charge sheet was issued on 24.1.2008 and the suspension order was stayed by this Court on 1.2.2008. I am therefore not inclined to uphold this contention that the charge sheet was issued only with a view to again suspending the petitioner because when the charge sheet was issued, the petitioner was already under suspension. Having regard to the facts of the case, while not interfering with the writ petition, I set the petitioner at liberty to make a representation to the Divisional Commissioner raising all such points which are raised in this writ petition including the report of nine panches who shall take 5 into consideration the same and hold and conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible in the matter strictly in accordance with the procedure contained in Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that in case the petitioner is again placed under suspension, he should be given liberty to approach this Court again. It is therefore made clear that if eventually any such order is passed by the respondents, the petitioner would be free to again approach this Court by filing an appropriate writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/