Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan, Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected petitions by a Pradhan challenging her suspension and a charge-sheet issued under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The Court observed that notings or remarks in government files were only internal correspondence without legal sanctity. The suspension stemmed from allegations dating back to 2017, when the petitioner, then Sarpanch, was accused of issuing pattas outside abadi land. While upholding the suspension and charge-sheet, the Bench directed that the enquiry proceedings be concluded within three months.

The petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan concerned the suspension of an elected Pradhan and the issuance of a charge-sheet against her under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand heard the matters together as they involved common facts and legal issues.

Also Read: Arbitration & Conciliation Act | Execution of Arbitral Award Cannot Be Deferred Merely Due to Pendency of Section 37 Appeal Without Interim Stay: Supreme Court

The petitioner, currently serving as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Kathumar, Alwar, had challenged two actions by the State authorities. The first was an order dated 25 April 2025 placing her under suspension in exercise of powers under Section 38 of the Act of 1994. The second was a charge-sheet issued under Rule 22(2) of the Rules of 1996 in relation to allegations from the year 2017, when she was serving as Sarpanch.

The allegations centred on the allotment of pattas outside the abadi land, specifically in Gair Mumkin Siwai Chak. The petitioner argued that determining the nature of land was the duty of the Revenue Officer, and that even if pattas were issued outside the abadi area, liability could not be attributed to her. It was also submitted that three enquiries had been conducted earlier, one of which found no charges established, while another found that only two pattas were outside the abadi limits. The petitioner contended that these matters were already closed, and that the present action was unwarranted and barred by principles of res judicata.

It was further submitted that the incident pertained to her earlier tenure as Sarpanch, which concluded in 2020, and that she was later re-elected as Pradhan. According to her counsel, no occasion arose for the respondents to reopen the matter in 2025, years after a complaint was first lodged in 2022. The suspension, she argued, was unnecessary since the enquiry was based on documents and she could not interfere with the process.

The State opposed the petitions. It was argued that the petitioner had allegedly issued pattas outside abadi land after accepting consideration, and that prima facie misconduct warranted enquiry. It was submitted that under Section 38(1) of the Act, an enquiry could be initiated even after the expiry of the earlier term, and under Section 38(4), suspension was permissible during pendency of such enquiry. Reliance was placed on earlier judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court to support this interpretation.

The Court recorded that the petitioner had been suspended and served a charge-sheet under Section 38 of the Act of 1994. It noted: “A bare reading of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 indicates that any member, including a Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson of the Panchayati Raj Institution may be removed if he or she refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting as such or is guilty of misconduct in discharge of duties or any disgraceful conduct. Sub-section (4) of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 provides that such person can be suspended against whom any enquiry under sub-section (1) of the Section 38 of the Act of 1994 has been initiated.”

The Court recorded: “Perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that serious allegations regarding allotment of pattas outside the abadi land have been levelled against the petitioner, in exchange of certain amount in gross violation of the provisions of the Rules of 1996. Several charges of serious nature have also been levelled against her with regard to corrupt practices and misuse of power and position, during her tenure as Pradhan and such conduct of the petitioner was found to be prima facie disgraceful.” It added that correctness of charges cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, noting: “This Court cannot act as an Enquiry Officer to adjudicate and assess the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner.”

On the petitioner’s argument about internal departmental notings, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in Pimpri Chinchawad: “A mere noting in the official files of the Government while dealing with any matter pertaining to any person is essentially an internal matter of the Government and carries with it no legal sanctity.”

The Court also rejected arguments based on delay, stating: “It is settled proposition of law that an enquiry under Section 38(1) of the Act of 1994 can be initiated even after expiry of the term of the Panchayati Raj Institution for the misconduct of the previous term.”

The Court clarified: “So far as the person who gets re-elected and continues to hold the same office, the order for removal can be passed and the provisions of Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994 clearly applies to such person and he can be suspended from his office.”

The Court remarked: “Suspension is merely a temporary deprivation of one’s status and does not amount to penalty and it is normally ordered when the allegations of misconduct or corruption are under scrutiny.” However, it cautioned that suspension of elected representatives should be exercised sparingly and with care.

The Court held: “This Court finds no merit and substance in these writ petitions and the same are liable to be and are hereby rejected.” The stay applications and all pending applications also stood rejected.

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court | Court Cannot Infer Cumulative Age Relaxation Absent Express Provision | Rule 9 of 1973 Service Rules and Recruitment Advertisement Upheld

“The respondents are expected to complete the ongoing enquiry proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously as early as possible but not beyond a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, as an elected public representative is under suspension and she cannot be allowed to remain under suspension for an indefinite period.”

“The respondents/authority shall conclude the ongoing enquiry, on its merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein by this Court.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yashodhar Pandey
For the Respondents: Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Udawat, Mr. Pranay Sharma, Mr. Prateek Saxena, Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Ms. Sara Parveen

Case Title: Sangam Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:31134
Case Numbers: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6663/2025 and 3425/2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand