Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand quashed the order of removal passed against an elected representative from the post of Administrator, stating that the procedure under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 was not adhered to. The Court held that the petitioner’s removal order dated 18.03.2025 was not legally sustainable due to the lack of compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal order and remitted the matter back to the State Government for fresh proceedings in accordance with Rule 22. The Court observed that the prescribed enquiry process must be followed before removing an elected official, and stated the democratic importance of procedural integrity in such actions. Directions were issued to ensure wider administrative compliance in future proceedings involving elected Panchayat members.

The petitioner, aged about 45 years, approached the Rajasthan High Court against the order dated 18.03.2025, which removed him from the post of Administrator. The petitioner was previously elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Panwar, Panchayat Samiti Devli, District Tonk. Upon completing his term as Sarpanch, he was appointed as the Administrator of the said Gram Panchayat.

Also Read: Free Power Beyond 13% Is Not Illegal If Contractually Agreed | Supreme Court Says CERC Cap Applies Only To Tariff Calculation, Not State Royalties

Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension pursuant to an enquiry contemplated under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. A charge-sheet was issued to him, and he submitted his written reply. However, according to the petitioner’s counsel, the impugned removal order was passed without conducting an enquiry as prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. It was contended that there was a complete disregard for procedural safeguards including oral evidence, cross-examination, and a report by an Enquiry Officer.

The petitioner’s counsel relied upon a previous judgment passed on 04.03.2013 by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court at Jodhpur in Roshani Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6886/2011), wherein similar facts were considered, and the action was held to be non-sustainable in the absence of a proper enquiry.

In response, counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition. It was argued that the petitioner, during his tenure as Sarpanch, committed multiple financial irregularities, leading to the initiation of a preliminary enquiry. Based on the outcome of this preliminary enquiry, a charge-sheet was served. After receiving the petitioner’s reply, the Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti conducted the final enquiry and concluded that the charges were substantiated. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from the post of Administrator.

The State maintained that the enquiry procedure was adequately followed and that there was no requirement for further formalities beyond what was already conducted. However, when directed by the Court to produce the original record, it was found that neither statements of witnesses were recorded nor any oral evidence was taken into account. The removal order was passed solely based on the reply to the charge-sheet.

It was admitted by the State counsel during the hearing that the enquiry did not include witness testimonies or detailed examination of evidence beyond the documentary reply.

The Court observed, "The basic thrust of argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that without following the mandate contained under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996, the order impugned has been passed." It proceeded to reproduce the full text of Rule 22, which outlines a detailed enquiry procedure, including preliminary enquiry, framing of definite charges, opportunity for written reply, appointment of Enquiry Officer, recording of oral and documentary evidence, cross-examination, preparation of a detailed enquiry report, and issuance of a reasoned order by the State Government.

Upon examination of the official records, the Court stated, "The record reveals that only on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner and without recording the evidence of witnesses and without considering the other evidence available on the record, straightaway, the order impugned has been passed."

The Court further noted, "In a democratic set up, an elected representative is the voice of the people to whom he represents, hence, much care and caution is required to be taken while removing him from the post he is holding."

Justice Dhand stated the importance of procedural compliance: "Before removing him from his post for any of the charges levelled against him, the provisions contained under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 are required to be followed. But, here in the instant case, the above procedure has not been followed."

The Court concluded that the order of removal was passed without an enquiry being conducted by an Enquiry Officer and without following the statutory process: "Only a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and after considering his reply to be non-satisfactory, his removal order has been passed."

The Bench further recorded, "The respondents were supposed to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, in terms of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996."

In its final directions, the Court quashed the impugned removal order and remitted the matter back for fresh proceedings. It stated, "In view of the above, facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 is not liable to be sustained and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside."

Further, the Court directed, "The matter is remitted to the State for passing fresh orders in terms of the Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

The writ petition, along with all pending applications including the stay application, stood disposed of. The Court added, "The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."

Also Read: Reservation In PSU Contracts For SC/ST Contractors Does Not Violate Article 14 | Bombay High Court Upholds BPCL Tender Policy As Affirmative Action Under Article 46

Significantly, the Court also addressed a systemic concern: "Before concluding this order, this Court observes that in numerous cases, orders for removal of Panchayat Members have been passed without adhering to the mandatory provisions and procedures outlined in Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996."

To address this procedural lapse, the Court issued administrative directions: "The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Government of Rajasthan; Divisional Commissioners; and District Collectors are hereby directed to inform all Chief Executive Officers of Panchayat Samitis about the importance of strictly following Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996."

Finally, the Court ordered, "Let a copy of this order be sent to Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, all Divisional Commissioners and all District Collectors of the State of Rajasthan."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Suresh Pareek with Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, Additional Government Counsel

Case Title: Puranmal Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:26081

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5608/2025

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand