SARDAR MEENA versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 22-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 114
114
SARDAR MEENA
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1558/2022)
FEBRUARY 22, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – s.38(1) – Removal and
Suspension of a member of Panchayati Raj Institution – FIR was
registered against the appellant-Sarpanch – Allegations that
appellant along with others committed the offence of house trespass
and even started indiscriminate firing that has resulted in the injuries
on several parts of the body of the complainant – High Court granted
bail to appellant – Preliminary enquiry initiated u/s.38(1) of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act read with r.22(2) of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Rules – Appellant suspended pending the enquiry
– Held : The proceedings in the criminal case would not weigh at
the stage in determining the conduct of the appellant – Suspension
of the appellant cannot continue in ad infinitum manner when it
has not to await any criminal proceedings – Necessity to bring an
end to proceedings initiated u/s.38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994 at the earliest – It will be for the respondent(s) to
establish the charge against the appellant de hors the registration
of the FIR on the principles of such proceedings and not on the
principles of criminal proceedings of proof beyond reasonable
doubts – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules – r.22(2).
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The grant of bail is only as a result of investigations
being complete and if one takes the bail order as a reason for no
prima facie case, it would put the law on its head more. [Para
4][117-A-B]
2. The own stand of the respondent is that the action is
based on the enquiry held by the concerned officer in pursuance
to the FIR. The sequiter would be that the proceedings in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
115
criminal case would not weigh at the stage in determining the
conduct of the appellant but would be dependent on the material
presented before the competent authority against the appellant.
The suspension can also not continue in an ad infinitum manner,
more so, when it has not to await any criminal proceedings.
[Para 11][118-E-F]
3. It is necessary to bring an end to the proceedings initiated
under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 at
the earliest and it is stated that the pleadings are complete. Thus,
Respondent should conclude the proceedings on or before 30th
April, 2022 and it will be the bounden duty of the appellant to
cooperate with those proceedings so as not to delay the same.
The suspension order would continue to be operational till 30th
April, 2022 alone. It will be for the respondent(s) to establish the
charge against the appellant de hors the registration of the FIR
on the principles of such proceedings and not on the principles
of criminal proceedings of proof beyond reasonable doubts [Paras
12 and 13][118-G-H; 119-A]
Ajit Singh & Anr. v. Financial Commissioner and
Secretary to Government and Anr., (2009) 16 SCC 308
– held inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
(2009) 16 SCC 308
Para 9
held inapplicable
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1558
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No.633 of 2021.
Shekhar Prit Jha, Sunil Kr. Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
Amitabh Kumar Chaubey, AAG, Ketan Paul, Adv. for the
Respondents.
SARDAR MEENA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. An FIR was registered on 12.05.2021 by the complainant Ravi
Kumar Meena against the appellant who is a Sarpanch of Gola ka Bas
alleging that the said Sarpanch along with 8-10 other associates, with
the intention of committing the offence of robbery, loot and murder came
on a vehicle in the night armed with weapons. They committed offence
of house trespass and with intention to cause fatal injury even started
indiscriminate firing. This has allegedly caused injuries on several parts
of the body of the complainant. On the registration of the FIR, the police
started investigation and took the appellant into custody. The endeavour
of the appellant to procure bail from the trial Court did not succeed but
ultimately the High Court granted bail. The charge sheet is stated to
have been filed post investigation and is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.