Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Farida Bano Wife Of Ata Mohammad vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 August, 2025
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
[2025:RJ-JP:31054]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3422/2025
Mahaveer Prasad Gautam S/o Shri Bhura Lal, Aged About 47
Years, R/o Village Takarvada, District Kota. (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Cum
Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner Cum Add. Commissioner (Inquiry),
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Kota (Raj).
----Respondents
connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11269/2025
Shri Raghunath Prasad Verma S/o Shri Mangala Ram, Aged
About 73 Years, R/o Govindpura, Village Govindpura, District
Sikar (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Vikas Khand, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Additional Commissioner Cum Deputy Secretary,
Ii(Inquiry) Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Rajasthan Government, Government
Secretariat, Vikas Khand, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Collector, Sikar Having Office Near Atal Seva
Kendra, Sikar (Raj).
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar Having Its
Office Near Doliyon Ka Bass, Sikar (Raj).
5. The Village Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Khandela, Sikar (Raj).
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (2 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8076/2025
Hemant Bairwa Son Of Shri Dulichand Ji, Aged About 29 Years,
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Natoj, Panchayat Samiti Kathumar,
District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary And
Commissioner Gramin Vikas And Panchayati Raj
Department (Panchayati Raj), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary
(Investigation), Gramin Vikas And Panchayati Raj
Department (Panchayati Raj), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Phool Singh S/o Bhawani, Administrator, Gram
Panchayat Natoj, Panchayati Samiti Kathumar, Alwar,
Rajashtan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9779/2025
Archana Surana D/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Surana, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Bhinai, Tehsil Bhinai, District Ajmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj Department) Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariaxt Jaipur
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat Jaipur
4. The Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary (Ii),
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Deprtment
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (3 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
(Panchayati Raj) Jaipur
5. The District Collector Ajmer, District Ajmer
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10610/2025
Farida Bano Wife Of Ata Mohammad, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Chhatadi Road, Kayampura, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary
(Inquiry), Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10846/2025
Ramchij Meena S/o Latur Meena, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of Gram Panchayat Chakeri, Tehsil And District Sawai
Madhopur, Rajasthan. (Former Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat
Chakeri)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Inquiry)
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sawai
Madhopur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (4 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
5. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Chakeri,
Rajasthan.
6. Mahavir Prasad Sharma S/o Radha Kishan Sharma,
Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Chakeri, Tehsil And
District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11390/2025
Vimla Devi W/o Shri Mala Ram Gurjar, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Village- Panchu, Kharkeda, Post Doonga Ki Nangal, Tehsil
Patan, District Sikar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary And
Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, C-Scheme,
Vaniki Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Commissionor And Deputy Govt.
Secretary (Enquiry), Rural Development And Panchayati
Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, District Council, Sikar.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Patan District-
Sikar.
5. Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat-Doonga Ki
Nangal, Patan, District-Sikar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10316/2025
Hemant Bairwa S/o Shri Ramcharan Bairwa, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Village Post Ganeshganj, Gram Panchayat
Ganeshganj, Panchayat Samiti Itawa, Tehsil Peepalda, District
Kota,
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Secretariat, Jaipur
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (5 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
2. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary
(Inquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Panchayati Raj
Bhawan, Jln Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Kota
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Itawa,,
District Kota.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11049/2025
Brija Raj Singh Hada S/o Shambhu Lal Hada, Aged About 59
Years, R/o Rajput Mohalla, Dhowara, Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary
(Inquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Panchayati Raj
Bhawan, Jln Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bundi.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Hindoli, District
Bundi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4189/2025
Narayan Lal Mehta S/o Shri Ghasi Lal, Aged About 62 Years,
Resident Of- Gram Panchayat Pipalkhedi, Tehsil Shahbad,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department
(Panchayati Raj) Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary Ii
(Investigation), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (6 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
3. Divisional Commissioner, Kota Division, District Kota,
Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, District Council, Baran,
Rajasthan.
5. Block Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shahbad, District Baran,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10309/2025
Shri Shishram Dayama Son Of Shri Bhambhuram, Aged About
42 Years, Resident Of Lakhawala, Virat Nagar, District Kotputli-
Behror, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary
(Investigation), Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Kotputli-Behror.
4. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Viratnagar,
District Kotputli-Behror.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3157/2025
Moiz Uddin Guddu S/o Naim Uddin Guddu, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of 129, Kesar Bagh, Police Line, Kota-324006
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (7 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur
4. The Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary (Ii),
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department
(Panchayati Raj), Jaipur
5. The District Collector, Kota District Kota
6. Zila Parishad Kota, Through Its Chief Executive Officer
7. Block Development Office, Panchayat Samiti Ladpura,
District Kota
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5047/2025
Bhoor Singh Meena S/o Sh. Jamphal Meena, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Mongepura, Panchayat Samiti Mandrayal,
District Karauli, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary
(Enquiry), Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Karauli,
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10822/2025
Khirraj Singh Son Of Shri Mukund Singh, Aged About 62 Years,
Resident Of Ragaron Ka Mohalla, Kukar, Panchayat Samiti
Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal, Village
Development And Panchayatiraj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (8 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
2. Additional Commissioner And Dy. Secretary
Administration (Inquiry), Department Of Rural
Development And Panchayatiraj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. District Collector, Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.)
4. Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer (Raj.)
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Tonk, District Tonk
(Raj.)
6. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Todarisingh,
District Tonk (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11703/2025
Rajesh Kumar Khatik S/o Shri Prabhulal Khatik, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Village Khuredi, Peeplu, District Tonk
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj Department) Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Additional Commissioner Cum Deputy Secretary To
The Government (Enquiry), Department Of Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj
Department) Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The District Collector Tonk, District Tonk
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Tonk
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Peeplu, District
Tonk
6. Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Kureda,
Panchayat Samiti Peeplu, District Tonk Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10406/2025
Alok Kumar Meena Son Of Mohan Lal Meena, Aged About 30
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (9 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
Years, Resident Of Khirkhiri Ka Pura, Kalyani, District Karauli
(Rajasthan) The Then Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Mamchari,
Panchayat Samiti, Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. The Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary
(Inquiry), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan)
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli, District
Karauli, (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10995/2025
Kajod Mal Yadav Son Of Mahadev Prasad Yadav, Aged About 71
Years, Resident Of Village Nopura, Sarpanch Wali Dhani,
Hasteda, Jaipur, District Jaipur The Then Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat, Hasteda, Panchayat Samiti, Govindgarh, District
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. The Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary
(Inquiry), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. The Bolck Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Govindgarh, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (10 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anil Mehta, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Yashodhary Pandey
Mr.Mahindra Shandilya
Mr.Rahul Kamwar
Mr.Anurag Sharma with
Mr.Akshat Sharma &
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 Respondent(s) : Mr.Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with
Mr.Ashutosh Udawat,
Mr.Saurabh Sharma,
Mr.Sumit Purohit
Mr.Prateek Saxena
Mr.Abhishek Bhardwaj
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
Reserved on : 11th & 12th Aug, 2025
Pronounced on : 18 Aug,2025
Reportable
For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the
following parts:-
INDEX
(1) Preface .................................................................................11
(2) Factual Matrix.......................................................................12
(3) Contentions of the petitioners......................................13
(4) Contention of the respondents.............................................16
(5) Analysis, Discussions & Findings..........................................17
(6) Conclusion & Directions................................................28
(7) Parting Remarks...........................................................29
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (11 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
Preface
1. The voice of the people is the voice of God. The latin phrase
"vox populi, vox Dei" has been used throughout history from time
immemorial to suggest that the will of the people is divinely
inspired.
2. Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi said "Panchayati Raj
Institution references true democracy." He believed that a
decentralized system of governance, where village communities
govern themselves, would be more effective way to achieve true
democracy in India.
3. Gandhi's ideas on Panchayati Raj were rooted in his belief
that true democracy should not be confined to the National or
State levels, but should extend to the grass root levels, ensuring
the participation of all citizens in the decision making process. He
saw Panchayats as building blocks of a strong and vibrant
democracy, where local needs and aspirations could be addressed
directly by the people themselves.
4. Gram Panchayat is the basic governing institution, at the
village level, in Indian villages. It is a political institution, akin to
the cabinet of a village or a group of villages. Member of the Gram
Panchayat are directly elected by the local people and the Gram
Panchayat is headed by an elected Sarpanch, who serves as the
administrative head of the Panchayat. There are approximately
2,50,000 Gram Panchayats across India. As per the available
statistics till March, 2021, Rajasthan alone had 11,341 Gram
Panchayats.
5. Gram Panchayat plays a vital role in ensuring local
governance and to address the needs and concerns of even the
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (12 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
most remote areas. The idea of establishment of Panchayat Raj
came into force vide 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India.
These Panchayats enable the rural residents to actively participate
in governance and ensure that the voices of the marginalized and
needy are heard.
6. As per the provisions contained under Article 243-E of the
Constitution of India, the tenure of a Panchayat is five years,
which can be extended for a maximum period of six months
thereafter.
7. In a democratic setup, an elected representative, such as
members of the Panchayati Raj Institutions, serve as the voice of
the people they represent. Therefore, removing them from their
post, requires careful consideration and due process.
8. Under the rule of law, an elected representative is entitled to
hold office for the term unless it is proven that his conduct is
disgraceful or that he has misused his power and position. Such
an elected representative can certainly be suspended and
removed from their post, after following the procedure contained
under the provisions of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Act, 1994. Whether such representatives can be removed from
their post without being given an opportunity to be heard or not is
the precise issue, which is required to be decided by this Court in
the instant batch of writ petitions.
Factual Matrix:
8. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in
these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the
parties, the arguments have been heard together and all these
writ petitions are being decided by this common order.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (13 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
9. In all these writ petitions, the orders of removal of the
petitioners from the post of Administrator have been assailed
primarily on the ground that they were passed without affording
any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without
conducting any enquiry, as required under Rule 22 of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules of
1996") and straightaway the orders impugned have been passed.
Contentions of the petitioners:
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Rahul Kamwar, Adv.
submits that after completion of the petitioners' tenure as
Sarpanch, a notification was issued by the Department of
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan vide order dated
16.01.2025 in the light of the Sections 95 and 98 of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act of 1994") and Rules
framed thereunder. It is submitted that by the said notification an
arrangement was made for appointing the outgoing Sarpanch as
Administrator by the concerned Panchayats to manage the day-to-
day affairs of the respective Gram Panchayats. Counsel further
submits that the said notification was having statutory force, being
in consonance with the provisions contained under Article 243-E of
the Constitution of India and the provisions contained under
Sections 95 and 98 of the Act of 1994.
11. Counsel submits that after levelling variety of charges
against the petitioners, a notice was issued to them calling upon
them to submit their reply. Counsel submits in response to the
notice, the petitioners duly submitted their reply, however, without
conducting any enquiry, as mandated under Order 22 of the Rules
of 1996 and without affording the petitioners any opportunity of
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (14 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
hearing, the impugned orders of removal from the post of
Administrator were passed straightaway. Counsel further submits
that even the notice referred to Section 38 of the Act of 1994,
which deals with the power of the State Government for removal
of Member of the Panchayati Raj Institutions, however, such power
can only be exercised after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the concerned person before passing any order. Counsel submits
that under these circumstances, orders passed by the State
removing the petitioners from the post of Administrator are not
tenable in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed and set-
aside.
12. Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Anurag Sharma, Adv. appearing
in the case of Bhoor Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.5047/2025) submits that even show-cause
notice was not served upon the petitioners prior to the issuance of
the impugned order of his removal from the post of Administrator,
which was passed straightaway on the basis of a fact finding
report prepared by the respondents. Counsel submits that the
impugned order refers to certain allegations/charges which are
stigmatic in nature. Counsel submits that whenever any order,
which is stigmatic in nature, is passed, it is mandatory for the
respondent-State to afford an opportunity of hearing before
passing the order. Counsel submits that under these
circumstances, the impugned order has been passed without
holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners, which has resulted in violation of the
principles of natural justice. Hence, on this count alone, the
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (15 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside on this count
alone.
13. Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Martand Pratap Singh, Adv.
appearing in the case of Vimla Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.11390/2025) submits that after the
completion of her term as Sarpanch, the petitioner was appointed
as Administrator. However, by passing the order impugned, she
has been removed from the post of Administrator and now, some
third person has been appointed in her place as Administrator.
Counsel submits that although there were earlier
recommendations for her suspensions, but even then, she was
appointed as Administrator. Therefore, under these circumstances,
the impugned order passed by the respondents is not sustainable
in law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
14. Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Anil Mehta, Sr. Adv. appearing
in the case of Hemant Bairwa Vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.8076/2025) submits that with regard to the
similar charges, the petitioner was exonerated by the concerned
Minister of the Department and a recommendation was made in
his favour stating that since the recovery amount has been duly
deposited by the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to remove
him from the post of Sarpanch.
15. Counsel submits that by exercising the powers contained
under Section 98 of the Act of 1994, the petitioner was not only
appointed as the Administrator, but was also nominated as a
Member of the Committee, constituted to manage the day-to-day
affairs of the Panchayat. Counsel further submits that in
accordance with the Sections 17 and 94 of the Act of 1994, after
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (16 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
expiry of term of any Panchayat, its functions are still required to
be carried out, and the Panchayat cannot be left in a state of
dissolution, pending the conduct of fresh elections.
16. All other counsels appearing for the petitioners have adopted
the arguments raised by Mr.Rahul Kamwar, Adv., Mr.Anurag
Sharma, Adv., Mr.M.P. Singh, Adv. & Mr.Anil Mehta, Sr.Adv.
Contentions of the respondents:
17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State
opposes the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioners
and submits that in all these writ petitions, the petitioners were
elected as the Sarpanch of their respective Gram Panchayats.
After completion of their tenure and looking to the delay in
conducting fresh elections, their terms were extended and they
were allowed to continue as a stopgap arrangement. Counsel
submits that in exercise of the powers contained under Section 95
of the Act of 1994, a circular/order dated 11.02.2025 was issued
by the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan
whereby a decision was taken to hand over the charge of the post
of Sarpanch to the same persons, who were holding the post of
Sarpanch prior to completion of their term. Counsel submits that
the aforesaid circular/order does not have any statutory force and
therefore, the petitioners do not hold any statutory post. As such,
they do not suffer any legal injury and they are not entitled to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of thise Court, contained
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel further
submits that the decision to remove all the petitioners from the
post of Administrator was taken, the pending enquiry relates to
the allegations/charges of misconduct committed by the
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (17 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
petitioners, during the course of their tenure as the elected
Sarpanch. Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances,
the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Puranmal
Verma & State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.5608/2025) is not applicable to the present set of facts and the
same is distinguishable.
18. In support of his contention, counsel for the respondents
placed reliance upon the following judgments are as follows:-
1. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465.
reported in (1988) 4 SCC 364.
3. Ramesh Chand malviya Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. reported in (2001) 2 RLW 1291.
19. Lastly, counsel for the respondent-State submits that the
orders impugned are not stigmatic in nature, as the enquiry is still
pending and the matter remains sub judice. Counsel further
submits that the order of removal of the petitioners from the post
of Administrator will have no effect on their future prospects, as
there is no chance of their promotion in future. Counsel submits
that the concept/analogy of ‘stigmatic order’ is applicable in
service matters only and not in the present cases. Counsel
submits that in view of the submission made herein above, these
writ petitions are not maintainable and being devoid of any merit,
are liable to be rejected.
Analysis, Discussions & Findings:
20. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and
perused the material available on record.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (18 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
21. Article 243-B of the Constitution of India deals with the
constitution of Panchayats and Chapter-III of the Act of 1994
deals with the procedure of constitution of the Panchayati Raj
Institutions. As per Article 243-B of the Constitution of India there
shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village and
at district levels and Section 9 of the Act of 1994 deals with the
provisions of establishment of panchayats.
22. Article 243-E of the Constitution of India deals with the
duration of the Panchayat and it lays down:-
“243E. Duration of Panchayats, etc.–(1) Every
Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law
for the time being in force, shall continue for five
years from the date appointed for its first meeting
and no longer.
(2) No amendment of any law for the time being in
force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of
a Panchayat at any level, which is functioning
immediately before such amendment, till the
expiration of its duration specified in clause (1).
(3) An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be
completed–
(a) before the expiry of its duration specified
in clause (1);
(b) before the expiration of a period of six
months from the date of its dissolution:
Provided that where the remainder of the
period for which the dissolved Panchayat would
have continued is less than six months, it shall not
be necessary to hold any election under this clause
for constituting the Panchayat for such period.
(4) A Panchayat constituted upon the dissolution of
a Panchayat before the expiration of its duration
shall continue only for the remainder of the period(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (19 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]for which the dissolved Panchayat would have
continued under clause (1) had it not been so
dissolved.”
23. Similarly, Section 17 of the Act of 1994 deals with the
duration of and election to the Panchayati Raj Institutions and it
lays down:-
“17. Duration of, and election to the
Panchayati Raj Institutions.- (1) Every
Panchayati Raj Institution, unless sooner
dissolved under this Act, shall continue for five
years from the date of the first meeting of the
respective institutions and no longer.
Explanation- The meeting held for the election
of Chairperson of a Zila Parishad or Panchayat
Samiti or, as the case may be, of up-Sarpanch of
a Panchayat shall be deemed to be the first
meeting of the respective Panchayati Raj
Institution.
(2) The Superintendence, direction and control of
the preparation of electoral rolls for and the
conduct of, all elections to the Panchayat Raj
Institution shall be vested in the State Election
Commission.
(3) The election to constitute a Panchayati Raj
Institution shall be completed-
(a) before the expiration of its duration specified
in Sub-sec. (1); and
(b) in the case of dissolution, before the
expiration of a period of six months from the
date of its dissolution :
Provided that where the remainder of the period
for which the dissolved Panchayat Raj Institution
would have continued is less than six months, it(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (20 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]shall not be necessary to hold any election under
this clause for constituting the Panchayati Raj
Institution for such period.
(4) A Panchayati Raj Institution constituted upon
its dissolution before the expiration of its
duration, shall continue only for the remainder of
the period for which it would have 12 continued
under Sub-sec. (1) had it not been so dissolved.
(5) The State Government may, from time to
time, make provisions by rules with respect to all
matters relating to or in connection with the
election to the Panchayati Raj Institution
including those in relation to the preparation of
electoral rolls, the delimitation of wards or
constituencies and all other matters necessary
for securing the due constitution of such
institutions.”
A conjoint reading of Article 243-E of the Constitution of
India and Section 17 of the Act of 1994 goes to show that the
duration of all the Panchayati Raj Institutions is five years and in
the present case, the tenure of all the Panchayats expired in the
month of January, 2025.
24. As per Article 243-E (3) of the Constitution of India, an
election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed before the
expiration of its duration, i.e., five years and before the expiration
of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution.
25. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioners were
elected as the Sarpanch of their respective Gram Panchayats and
their term of five years expired in the month of January, 2025.
This fact is not in dispute that fresh elections for the post of
Sarpanch or Member of Panchayats have not been conducted till
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (21 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
date. Hence, as a stopgap arrangement, the petitioners have been
appointed as the Administrators of their respective Panchayats,
pursuant to the Notification issued by the State Government in
exercise of its powers contained under Sections 95 and 98 of the
Act of 1994.
26. For ready reference, Sections 95 and 98 of the Act of 1994
are reproduced as under:-
“95. Consequences of dissolution.- (1) When a
Panchayati Raj Institution is dissolved under this Act,
following consequences shall ensue:-
(a) all the members of the Panchayati Raj
Institution including the Chairperson shall,
on the date of dissolution vacate their
respective offices but without prejudice to
their eligibility for re-election or re-
appointment.
(b) all powers and duties of the Panchayati
Raj Institution shall, during the period of
dissolution, be exercised and performed by
such administrator as the State Government
may appoint in this behalf; and
(c) all property vested in the Panchayati
Raj Institution shall, during the period of
dissolution, vest in the Government.
(2) If it shall not be possible to reconstitute the
Panchayati Raj Institution within the time specified in
Clause (b) of Sub-sec (3) of Sec. 17 because of any
stay by any competent court or authority on any
general election to the Panchayati Raj Institution
concerned and the proceedings consequent thereof
the consequences specified in Clause (b) and (c) of
Sub-sec. (1) shall follow.
(3) An order of dissolution made under Sec. 94
together with a statement of the reasons thereof
shall be laid before the House of the State
Legislature, as soon as may be, after it has been
made.
98. Delegation of Powers.- The State Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate-
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (22 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
(a)all or any of its power under this Act to
any officer or authority subordinate to it, and
(b)all or any of the power of the officer-in-
charge of Panchayats under this Act to any
other officer or authority.”
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.
On the contrary, the petitioners have been allowed to continue by
virtue of the provisions of law which are not having statutory
force.
27. All of the petitioners have been removed under Section 38(1)
of the Act of 1994. Section 38 of the Act of 1994 deals with the
provisions of removal and suspension of any member of the
Panchayati Raj Institution. Section 38 of the Act of 1994, being
relevant in the present context, is reproduced as under:-
“38. Removal and Suspension.- (1) The State
Government may, by order in writing and after
giving him and opportunity of being heard and
making such enquiry as may be deemed
necessary, remove from office any member
including a Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson
of a Panchayati Raj Institution, who-
(a) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting
as such; or
(b) is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of
duties or any disgraceful conduct :
Provided that any enquiry under this sub-section
may, even after the expiry of the term of the
Panchayati Raj Institution concerned be initiated
or, if already initiated before such expiry, be(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (23 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]continued thereafter and in any such case, the
State Government shall, by order in writing,
record its findings on the charges levelled.
(2)The Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson
removed under Sub-sec. (1) may at the
discretion of the State Government also be
removed from the membership, of any of the
Panchayati Raj Institution concerned.
(3)The member or the Chairperson or the Deputy
Chairperson removed under Sub-sec. (1)or
against whom finding have been recorded under
the proviso to that sub-sec, shall not be eligible
for being chosen under this Act for a period of
five years from the date of his removal or, as the
case may be, the date on which such findings are
recorded.
(4)The State Government may suspended any
member including a Chairperson or a Deputy
Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution
against whom an enquiry has been initiated
under Sub-sec. (1) or against whom any criminal
proceedings in regard to an offense involving
moral turpitude is pending trial in a Court of law
and such person shall stand debarred from
taking part in any act or proceeding of the
Panchayati Raj Institution concerned while being
under such suspension.
Provided that the State Government may also
suspend any Panch on the recommendation of
the Ward Sabha or a Sarpanch on the
recommendation of the Gram Sabha, but the
State Government shall do so only when a
resolution to that effect passed by a Ward Sabha,
or a Gram Sabha, as the case may be, is referred
by the State Government to the Collector for
convening a special meeting of the Ward Sabha
or the Gram Sabha, as the case may be, for
finally ascertaining the wished of the members
and the members present in the meeting so
convened by the Collector and presided over by
his nominee, reaffirm the resolution seeking
suspension of the Panch or the Sarpanch, as the
case may be, by a majority of two-third of the
members present and voting. Providing further
that no resolution seeking suspension of the
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (24 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
Panch or Sarpanch shall be moved or passed
before the completion of a tenure of two years by
a Panch or a Sarpanch, as the case may be.
(5) The decision of the State Government on any
matter arising under this section shall, subject to
any order made under Sec. 97, be final and shall
not be liable to be questioned in any Court of
law.”
28. 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.
29. 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. In some cases, charge-
sheets along with memorandum of charges have been served
upon them, whereas in some cases, no charge-sheet has been
given to them.
30. In the majority of cases, the charges pertain to misuse of
the powers and the position during the petitioners’ tenure as
Sarpanch. The petitioners have been found prima facie guilty of
the charges/ allegations levelled against them and consequently,
they have been removed from the post of Administrator.
31. The very opening of Section 38(1) of the Act says that any
member of Panchayati Raj Institution may be removed if he is
found guilt of misconduct or disgraceful act. But, herein the
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (25 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
instant case, all the petitioners have been removed straightaway
without granting them any opportunity of hearing.
32. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners,
being Administrators, have no right to continue on the post of
Sarpanch, after completion of their tenure on the post of
Sarpanch. He further submitted that the petitioners were
appointed as Administrators merely as a stopgap arrangement till
conducting of new & fresh elections, therefore, neither any notice
was required to be issued to them nor it was necessary to afford
them an opportunity of being heard. Counsel submitted that after
removal of the petitioners from the post of Administrator, now
appropriate enquiry will be conducted against them and in case,
the charges are found to be proved against them, appropriate
orders will be passed against them, including debarring them from
contesting the future elections.
33. 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. If the authorities have already decided to take
action prior to initiating any enquiry, then granting a post-
decisional hearing would be an empty formality calling for violation
of the principle of natural justice.
34. It is the settled proposition of law that any administrative or
quasi-judicial order is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or
unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (26 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
it. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Man Singh v. State of
Haryana reported in (2008) 12 SCC 331 has held in para 20 as
under:-
“20. We may reiterate the settled position of
law for the benefit of the administrative
authorities that 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 concept
of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India embraces the entire realm
of State action. It would extend to an individual
as well not only when he is discriminated against
in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the
matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals
have to be treated equally even in the matter of
executive or administrative action. As a matter of
fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a
synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and
stands as the most accepted methodology of a
governmental action. The administrative action is
to be just on the test of “fair play” and
reasonableness.”
35. It is a well-settled principle of law that gathering evidence by
way of enquiry with an intention to support the pre-decisional
punishment will just emphasize the matter and the same would be
against the principle of Natural Justice. In the case of State of
Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. reported in
(2011) 14 SCC 770, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“Since the foundation of initiation of the
departmental proceeding and its conduct have
been shown to be entirely illegal, the
foundation has to be necessarily removed, as a
result of which the structure/work of
punishment given to this writ petitioner stood,
is bound to fall.”
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (27 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
36. A similar methodology was employed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of
India reported in (1981) 1 SCC 664 where a void administrative
choice was approved by way of post-decisional hearing. An order
assuming control over the administration of an organization by the
Government without earlier notice or hearing was held to be bad
as it abused the audi alteram partem rule. Be that as it may, the
Court approved the impugned order on the grounds that the
Government had consented to give post-decisional hearing.
37. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases
and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred in
above paragraphs, this Court finds that the petitioners were
proceeded in accordance with the provision of Section 38 of the
Act of 1994, without being afforded any opportunity of hearing
and all of them have been removed from the post of Administrator
and thereafter, charge-sheets have been served upon them to
conduct enquiry.
In the opinion of this Court, the respondents have pre-
determined 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
respondents who embark upon a post-decisional hearing will
naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any
chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation of
the petitioners at such a post-decisional opportunity.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (28 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
38. The issue involved in the instant cases can be understood
with the following saying that “An accused person cannot be held
guilty prior to the commencement of a trial against him.” It is
settled proposition of law that every accused has a right to a fair
trial to determine whether he is innocent or guilty. This is an
internationally recognized human right. If any charges have been
levelled against the petitioners, they have right of fair opportunity
of hearing and enquiry. Fair trial helps establish the truth and is
vital for everyone involved in a case. This is a cornerstone of
democracy, helping to ensure fair and just societies and limiting
abuse by Government and the State authorities. 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. Hence, their right of fair
enquiry has been undermined.
39. The Rule of law mandates that the State Authorities must act
strictly in accordance with law and remain accountable for their
actions. It also means that everyone within the State is subject to
the same legal framework and laws. No individual, regardless of
wealth or power, is above the law. The rule of law must be
enforced uniformly and consistently. This may necessitate the
adoption of special measures to ensure that individuals are
afforded a fair chance to present their defence.
Conclusion & Directions:
40. In the instant case, the respondents have failed to comply
with the mandatory provisions contained under Section 38(1) of
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (29 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
the Act of 1994, as no opportunity of hearing has been provided to
the petitioners by the respondents prior to passing their orders of
removal from the post of Administrator. 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.
41. 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.
42. With the aforesaid observation and directions, all these
petitions as well as the stay application and all pending, if any,
also stand disposed of.
Parting Remarks:
43. 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 entire exercise of delimitation should have been
completed prior to the expiry of the term of the Panchayats or
within six months of the dissolution of these Panchayati Raj
Institutions.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (30 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
44. The Government and relevant Authorities are duty-bound to
ensure that the delimitation process is completed in a timely
manner, allowing elections to be conducted as per the
constitutional mandate. In cases where Panchayats are dissolved,
elections should ideally be held within six months, as per the
constitutional framework. This ensures that the democratic
process remains uninterrupted and local governance continues to
function effectively.
45. The principle of democratic governance at the grass root
level is fundamental to the functioning of the Panchayati Raj
Institutions and adherence to constitutional timelines is essential
for the health of local democracy.
46. The instant cases are glaring example of violation of the
Constitutional mandate, wherein the petitioners were permitted to
hold the post of Administrator to manage the day-to-day affairs of
their respective Panchayats and even after expiry of more than six
months of dissolution of their respective Panchayats, the
petitioners are allowed to continue on the post of Administrator.
But, subsequently they have been removed without adhering to
the provisions and procedure prescribed under the law.
47. In case of persistent failure & delay to conduct election
process of the Panchayati Raj Institutions, it is incumbent upon
the State Election Commission or the Election Commission of India
to intervene and take necessary measures to restore the
democratic process.
48. Prolonged postponement of these elections can result into a
governance vacuum at the local level, adversely affecting the
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31054] (31 of 31) [CW-3422/2025]
delivery of services and developmental activities at the grass root
level. This Court hopes and trusts that the Government of
Rajasthan will look into the matter and address the issue promptly
and will further ensure that elections of the Panchayati Raj
Institutions are conducted at the earliest opportunity.
49. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Rajasthan, Election Commission of India and the
State Election Commission to look into the matter and to do the
needful in terms of the mandate contained under Article 243-E of
the Constitution of India and observations made by this Court in
Para Nos.43 to 48 of this order.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Aayush Sharma, Jr.PA.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 10:03:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)