1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1673/2007 Bhanwara Ram Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors Date of order : 12.8.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. RS Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Asstt to AAG. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Sahayogi in Rajeev Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathashala in Government Primary School, Bidasaron Ki Dhani, Gelasar, Tehsil Makarana, District Nagaur. It alleged that respondent Puran Das was elected as Sarpanch and the father of the petitioner Shri Hanuman Ram contested the elections against the respondent Puran Das for the post of Sarpanch and therefore, the respondent Puran Das had ill eye over the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent Puran Das demanded money from the remuneration of the petitioner to the extent of 20% of the salary given to the petitioner then ultimately, the petitioner's services were terminated on the basis of resolution no.6 of the Gram Sabha held on 27th 2 Dec., 2006 which was forwarded to the concerned BDO, who passed the order of termination of the services of the petitioner on 20.1.2007. The petitioner then preferred this writ petition to challenge the order dated 20.1.2007 (Annex.15) and the resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 27.12.2006 (Annex.6). The respondent no.4 – the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was impleaded as party in the writ petition who has filed reply to the writ petition. In reply he stated that though resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat in Gram Sabha holding him guilty of running parallel school and not attending the school where he is appointed and recommendations were sent for removal of the petitioner from service and in consequence thereof, the petitioner was removed from service then states that thereafter villagers submitted another representation copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.R/5/1 wherein the villagers stated that the complaint against the petitioner was false and frivolous. Sarpanch states that in view of that representation of the villagers again Gram Panchayat took resolution on 5th March, 2007 to withdraw the earlier 3 resolution of termination of the service of the petitioner though it was already approved by the competent authority and petitioner was removed from service. It is a case of the petitioner that inspite of that resolution, the petitioner yet has not been reinstated in service. The facts reveal that the respondent Gram Panchayat and particularly, the respondent no.4- Sarpanch of the village accepted the complaint of the villagers and in the resolution dated 27th Dec., 2006 there is signature of 44 persons and it has been stated that resolution was taken unanimously to terminate the services of the petitioner. There is one more list annexed with this resolution which shows name of more than 143 persons signing the resolution of the Gram Sabha. Then Annex. Respondent/5/1 has been signed by 24 persons who stated that a complaint against the petitioner is forged and the Sarpanch then states in the reply that earlier complaint was false. The petitioner's contention is that petitioner's father contested the election against the respondent no.4- Sarpanch Puran Das and because of that reason there was enmity. All these facts clearly shows that how the Gram Panchayat Gelasar is 4 working. They may accept the complaint of so many persons and may take action against the employee of the Government and within few months only they may take contrary decision and there is no explanation of the allegation levelled by the petitioner that the respondent no.4 was the rival candidate in the election of the Sarpanch for the Panchayat. Be it as it may be, yet the respondent's resolution dated 5th March, 2007 has not been acted upon and no consequential order of reinstatement of the petitioner has been passed. Since there are two rival contentions and there is no proper inquiry in the matter, therefore, copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur who may hold inquiry through any competent officer and thereafter, may take a decision on the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 5th March, 2007 by which it has been decided to restore the services of the petitioner. The inquiry be completed within a period of two months from today and if it is found that complaint was forged against the petitioner then the relief may be granted to the 5 petitioner forthwith. In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is partly allowed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-