Rajasthan High Court Quashes Removal of Panchayat Administrators Without Hearing | Warns Govt Against Indefinite Postponement of Elections Under Article 243-E
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, delivered a judgment on 18 August 2025, quashing removal orders issued against several individuals who had been appointed as Administrators of Gram Panchayats following the expiry of their elected terms. The Court held that the orders were passed without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, in violation of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the principles of natural justice. The Court directed that the petitioners be restored to their positions until lawful proceedings are conducted, and further directed the State authorities to initiate and conclude appropriate enquiries within two months. Additionally, the Court observed that the Government cannot indefinitely delay elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions under the guise of delimitation and stressed that timely elections are constitutionally mandated.
The petitions involved multiple former Sarpanches from different districts of Rajasthan, who were appointed as Administrators after the expiry of their elected tenure in January 2025. The petitioners challenged their subsequent removal by the State Government, contending that the impugned orders were passed without enquiry or opportunity of hearing.
According to the factual matrix recorded in the judgment, the petitioners were elected representatives who completed their five-year terms as Sarpanches. Due to delays in conducting fresh elections, the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, issued a notification on 16 January 2025 in exercise of powers under Sections 95 and 98 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, appointing the outgoing Sarpanches as Administrators to oversee the day-to-day functioning of Panchayats. This arrangement was intended as a temporary measure until fresh elections could be conducted in accordance with Article 243-E of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners argued that their removal orders were issued under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which deals with removal and suspension of members of Panchayati Raj Institutions, but the statutory procedure was not followed. They contended that they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing or subjected to proper enquiry as required under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.
It was further submitted that in some cases, while show-cause notices were issued, replies filed by the petitioners were disregarded, and in other cases, no notice was served at all. The petitioners maintained that the orders of removal, referring to stigmatic allegations of misconduct and misuse of position, were punitive in nature and could not have been passed without a pre-decisional hearing.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that the orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Specific reference was made to Section 38 of the Act of 1994, which mandates that removal can only occur “after giving him an opportunity of being heard and making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary.” They argued that the State Government had failed to adhere to this requirement.
Individual arguments were also advanced. In one case, it was contended that the petitioner had already been exonerated by the concerned Minister on similar charges during his tenure as Sarpanch, and hence removal from the post of Administrator was unwarranted. In another instance, it was stated that the petitioner was appointed as Administrator even after earlier recommendations for suspension, which demonstrated inconsistency on the part of the State.
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by the State of Rajasthan, argued that the petitioners, having completed their statutory term as Sarpanches, had no vested right to continue as Administrators. The State contended that their continuation was merely a stopgap arrangement, made under a circular/order dated 11 February 2025, and did not have statutory force. Therefore, the petitioners could not claim legal injury upon removal.
It was further submitted by the State that enquiries into allegations of misconduct during the petitioners’ tenure as elected Sarpanches were still pending, and the orders of removal did not prejudice their rights. The respondents contended that the concept of stigmatic orders applied only in service law and not in cases relating to Panchayati Raj Institutions. They relied on judicial precedents including Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, J.R. Raghupathy v. State of A.P., and Ramesh Chand Malviya v. State of Rajasthan.
The State maintained that the petitioners were removed based on prima facie findings of misconduct during their elected tenure and that post-decisional enquiries would be conducted. It was argued that no notice was required for removal from a non-statutory arrangement.
The Court recorded that the central issue was whether removal of Administrators could be affected without affording them an opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 38 of the Act of 1994.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that Article 243-E of the Constitution of India and Section 17 of the Act of 1994 provide that the tenure of Panchayati Raj Institutions is five years, and elections must be completed before expiry or within six months of dissolution. The Court noted that in January 2025, the terms of the petitioners had expired, and elections were not conducted, resulting in their appointment as Administrators under Sections 95 and 98 of the Act of 1994.
The Court stated: “The Panchayati Raj Institutions of the petitioners have been dissolved under Section 95 of the Act of 1994 and powers of the Administrator have been delegated to them under Section 98 of the Act of 1994. This Court finds no substance in the submissions of counsel for the respondents that since the petitioners have completed their five-year term and were thereafter appointed as Administrator, they have no legal right to file these writ petitions.”
Examining Section 38 of the Act, the Court recorded: “Bare perusal of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 postulates that the State Government may remove any member of the Panchayati Raj Institution, after giving him an opportunity of being heard, who refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting as such; or who is guilty of misconduct in discharge of his duties or any disgraceful conduct.”
The Court found that in the instant cases, the petitioners had been removed on the basis of fact-finding reports without any prior opportunity of hearing. “Herein the instant cases, all the petitioners have been removed from their posts of the Administrators on the basis of various kinds of allegations/charges levelled against them, having been found prima facie guilty on the basis of fact- finding reports prepared by the concerned Authorities… But, herein the instant case, all the petitioners have been removed straightaway without granting them any opportunity of hearing.”
On the contention that a post-decisional hearing would suffice, the Court recorded: “This implies that the respondents would conduct a Post-Decisional Hearing with closed mind and such a hearing would amount to a sheer formality, conducted with the pre-conceived intention to impose punishment, thereby rendering the Post-Decisional Hearing ineffective. The basic prospect of natural justice mandates a pre-decisional hearing and not a post-decisional hearing.”
The Court referred to the principle that administrative action must be fair, citing the Supreme Court in Man Singh v. State of Haryana: “Any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it.”
The judgment further relied upon the principle established in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, holding that enquiry proceedings conducted merely to support a predetermined punishment violate natural justice. Similarly, the Court invoked Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, where an order passed without pre-decisional hearing was found to be invalid.
Summarising its reasoning, the Court stated: “In the opinion of this Court, the respondents have predetermined to impose the order of removal on the petitioners and thereafter, proceeded to hold enquiry, giving only a post-decisional opportunity of hearing which does not subserve the rule of natural justice and is contrary to the principles of fair play.”
The Court concluded that the petitioners’ right to fair enquiry had been undermined: “A fundamental principle behind the right of fair trial or enquiry is that every person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But, in the instant case, the petitioners have been treated as guilty before they have had their day in enquiry.”
The Court quashed and set aside the impugned removal orders of the petitioners. It granted liberty to the State to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, provided due opportunity of hearing is given. The Court directed: “Accordingly, this Court quashes and sets aside the impugned removal orders of the petitioners from the post of Administrator and grants liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners by exercising the powers contained under Section 38 of the Act of 1994 and Rules of 1996 framed thereunder.”
The Court further directed: “The respondents are expected to initiate proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with Sections 38(1) and 38(4) of the Act of 1994, and conclude the same expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today and pass fresh orders, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.”
In its parting remarks, the Court noted the constitutional mandate for timely elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions: “In the name and interest of delimitation, the Government cannot postpone the entire election process of the Panchayati Raj Institutions indefinitely, contrary to the mandate contained under Article 243-E of the Constitution of India and Section 17 of the Act of 1994.”
The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, the Election Commission of India, and the State Election Commission for compliance.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anil Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Yashodhary Pandey, Mr. Mahindra Shandilya, Mr. Rahul Kamwar, Mr. Anurag Sharma with Mr. Akshat Sharma and Mr. Anoop Meena, Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura, Ms. Naina Saraf, Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman, Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. Laxmi Narayan Saini, Mr. Martand Pratap Singh, Mr. Amit Jindal with Ms. Neetu Bhansali, Mr. Shiv Lal Meena, Mr. Vikas Kumar Jakhar, Mr. Devendra Choudhary, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Ashutosh Udawat, Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Mr. Sumit Purohit, Mr. Prateek Saxena, Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj.
Case Title: Mahaveer Prasad Gautam & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:31054]
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3422/2025 (connected matters)
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
