Elected Official Represents People's Voice: Rajasthan High Court Flags Removal Of Panchayat Members Without Adherence To Procedure

The Rajasthan High Court took note of numerous cases wherein orders for removal of Panchayat Members were passed without adhering to the mandatory provisions and procedures of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, observing that it appeared that Enquiry Officers were not well-versed with the provisions.Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Divisional Commissioners, and District Collectors, to inform all the Chief Executive Officers of Panchayat Samitis about the importance of Rule 22, to prevent future errors. The court said so after noting that in a democratic set up an elected representation represents the voice of the people that elected them and hence removal of such officials must be carried out carefully. Rule 22 of the Rules laid down the procedure for enquiry which states that before taking any action the State Government may ask the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer to get a preliminary enquiry done and to send his report to the State Government within one month. If, upon consideration of the report, the State Government is of the opinion that action under Sub-Section (1) of Section 38 is necessary, then it shall frame definite charges, wherein the concerned member is to submit his defence to these allegations. The rule includes cross examination, preparation of a report on conclusion of enquiry, recording of findings on every charge with reasons etc. The court thus said:"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. It appears that Enquiry Officers are not well-versed with these provisions, leading to errors in their orders. 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. This will help prevent similar errors in future orders passed against public representatives who are disqualified due to disgraceful conduct. 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". The court passed the order in a petition by the Administrator of the Gram Panchayat, Panwar, Panchayat Samiti Devli, who claimed that he was removed from the post without the procedure under Rule 22 being followed, in relation to allegations of financial irregularities committed on his part when was the Sarpanch earlier. This removal was challenged on the ground that after serving the charge-sheet no procedure under Rule 22 was followed. As mandated by Rule 22, there was no recording of evidence of witnesses or consideration of other evidence available on record, and only based on the reply submitted by the petitioner, he was removed from the post.The court noted that the preliminary as well as the final enquiry report conducted by the Block Development Officer, revealed 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 removal order was passed. It was admitted by the State counsel that the statements of the witnesses have not been recorded and other documents were not taken into account before passing the order."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. In a democracy governed by the Rule of Law, once an incumbent is elected to an office in a democratic institution, he is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his conduct is found to be disgraceful or he has misused his power and position involving any kind of activities, which warrant his removal from his post in terms of Section 38 of the Act of 1994. But 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".The court noted that in the present case the procedure had not been followed and thus set aside the petitioner's removal. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the State for passing fresh order after following Rule 22.Title: Purnamal Verma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 243Click Here To Read/Download Order

Elected Official Represents People's Voice: Rajasthan High Court Flags Removal Of Panchayat Members Without Adherence To Procedure

Nupur Agrawal

Tags