Rajasthan HC Rules Defaulter Cannot Evade Liability By Citing Term End, Upholds Inquiry Against Official After Village’s Conversion To Municipality
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the suspension of a Municipal Board Chairperson who was accused of misconduct. However, the Court has allowed the inquiry against her, initiated under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, to continue. The proceedings were instituted after the area under her jurisdiction was converted from a gram panchayat to a municipality.
The petitioner, formerly Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Napasar, faced an inquiry under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 for allegedly appointing contractual staff without required approval, causing a ₹5 lakh loss. Before its conclusion, the area became a municipality, and she became Chairperson of the Municipal Board, prompting a fresh inquiry on the same charges under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. She argued this amounted to double jeopardy and that her suspension under the 2009 Act, nearly three years later, was unjustified.
The Bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal observed, “A comparative reading of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 and Section 40 of the Act of 2009 clearly indicates that an inquiry initiated under either provision may continue even after the expiry of the term of the elected member against whom the misconduct is alleged. What emerges from a plain reading of both provisions is that a person accused of misconduct cannot escape his/her accountability merely because his/her term has ended.”
"The operation of Section 3(8) (f) of the Act of 2009 necessitates a suitable mechanism to ensure that any pending inquiry, such as the one in the present case, reaches its logical conclusion. If the argument of the petitioner that proceedings cannot be continued under Section 39 of the Act of 2009 is accepted, it would leave the State Government with no legal recourse to conclude the inquiry.This would result in an untenable situation where neither the Act of 1994 nor the Act of 2009 could be invoked, effectively allowing the misconduct to go unaddressed." the Court stated.
The Court observed that the Panchayati Raj Department, aware of the appointments and having initiated an inquiry under the 1994 Act without suspending the petitioner, likely did not find the charges grave or sufficiently supported. Since the charges were unchanged, there was no justification for suspending her during the later inquiry under the 2009 Act. The petition was partly allowed—allowing the inquiry to continue but setting aside her suspension and restoring her to office.
Read Here: