1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.824/2000 Nahar Singh vs. State of Raj. and others. Date : 19.1.2005 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Sanjay Mathur ) for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Purohit ) Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Dy.GA. for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was elected as Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sayra in the year 1995. The petitioner was served a memorandum under Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short the “Rules”) seeking explanation from the petitioner for the allegations levelled against him which are placed on record along with Annexure-1. The Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Udaipur was appointed as enquiry officer who after enquiry, recorded a finding against the petitioner vide his enquiry report dated 29.1.1999. The petitioner was asked to furnish his representation against the said findings as recorded in the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation vide Annex.6. The State Government passed the impugned order on 22.2.2000 holding that the petitioner is guilty. It appears that the petitioner was suspended during the enquiry vide order dated 4.5.1998 but that order was cancelled subsequently. However, it appears 2 that the petitioner’s term expired and, therefore, by the impugned order dated 22.2.2000, only finding was recorded against the petitioner under Section 38(1) (kha) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the “Act”) as there was no necessity for passing any order for removal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the State Government dated 22.2.2000 is absolutely illegal as the order has been passed without considering the representation submitted by the petitioner. It is also submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Further, it is submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking order. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Anant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in RLW 1998(2) Raj. Page 755. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the order has been passed without considering the objections raised by the petitioner in his representation. Not only this but the order virtually says that since the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty, therefore, the State Government has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has misused the fund of Panchayat as well as office. 3 In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 22.2.2000 is set aside. However, the State Government will free to pass fresh order after considering the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya