“Court Cannot Act As An Enquiry Officer”: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Quash Charge-Sheet In Disciplinary Proceedings Against Elected Pradhan

The Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held, “The elected representative of the public cannot be equated with that of the Government employees since these offices are held by the incumbent for a fixed period of time and the court would not shirk its responsibility to intervene in the matter as and when a glaring case of the kind is brought before it. Power even in such like cases should be used very sparingly and that too with utmost care and caution.”

The Court added, “In the considered opinion of this Court, the correctness of the charges and the allegations cannot be decided and adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot act as an Enquiry Officer to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate R.N. Mathur, while Advocate General Rajendra Prasad appeared for the State.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa. However, a no-confidence motion was initiated against her in July 2024, but it failed. Subsequently, a preliminary enquiry was initiated and culminated in her suspension and a charge-sheet being issued.

The Petitioner contended that the suspension was a counterblast to the failed no-confidence motion and was executed with mala fide intent just days before the Model Code of Conduct for the Assembly elections came into force. It was further submitted that under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, suspension can only follow a duly initiated enquiry. The Petitioner further claimed that several charges were related to collective decisions of the Panchayat Committee and she had no individual role in them.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court took note of the fact-finding committee’s preliminary report, which found prima facie evidence of financial irregularities. It further noted that the charge-sheet contained allegations such as excessive payments to contractors, award of tenders in violation of procurement laws, misallocation of shops at concessional rates to relatives, and misuse of panchayat income.

Rejecting the challenge to the suspension order, the Court noted, “It is settled proposition of law that the charge-sheet cannot be interfered with by the Court lightly or in a routine manner… The suspension of an elected representative cannot be equated with that of a government employee but may still be justified if there is prima facie evidence of misconduct.”

The Court further rejected the argument that the suspension order was invalid merely because it was issued on a public holiday, stating, “There is no prohibition in law for performance of any official work on a holiday and if any order is passed on such day, the same cannot be treated as void and invalid.”

On the issue of charge handover, the Court held that handing over charge to the Complainant was contrary to Section 25 of the Act. The Bench directed, “The respondents are directed to take charge from the said member-Rohitash forthwith and hand over the same to the Deputy Chairperson, and if there is no Deputy Chairperson, then to any other member except the complainant.”

Consequently, the Court upheld the charge-sheet and suspension, but directed the State to reassign the charge within seven days in compliance with the Act. It also directed the Respondents to conclude the enquiry within three months.

Cause Title: Indra Dudi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:16652)

Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate R.N. Mathur; Advocate Himanshu Jain
Respondents: Advocate General Rajendra Prasad; AAG Kapil Prakash Mathur; Advocates Harshita Thakral, Tanay Goyal

Click here to read/download Order