Supreme Court Directs Swift Conclusion of Suspension Proceedings for Sarpanch: Sardar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (22 February 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1558/2022, (Arising out of SLP [C] No.16820/2021)

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh

Can a Sarpanch be kept under suspension indefinitely due to a pending criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case concerning the suspension of a Sarpanch in Rajasthan. The court clarified that while a Sarpanch can be suspended during an inquiry or a criminal trial involving moral turpitude, such suspension cannot continue indefinitely. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The case revolves around an FIR filed on 12 May 2021 by Ravi Kumar Meena against Sardar Meena, the Sarpanch of Gola ka Bas. The FIR alleged that the Sarpanch, along with 8-10 associates, trespassed with weapons, intending to commit robbery, loot, and murder. The complainant claimed that the group fired indiscriminately, causing injuries to him. Following the FIR, the police arrested the Sarpanch. Although the trial court initially denied bail, the High Court eventually granted it. A charge sheet was filed, and the matter was pending before the trial court for framing of charges.

Subsequently, the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh, sought information about the FIR. After receiving police reports, the Development Officer informed the Chief Executive Officer, District Parishad, Alwar, who in turn notified the Governing Secretary and Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, on 24 May 2021. A preliminary inquiry was initiated under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Consequently, a charge sheet was issued, and the Sarpanch was suspended on 16 June 2021.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant’s attempts to secure bail from the trial court were initially unsuccessful. However, the High Court eventually granted bail after the investigation was completed. The trial court was yet to frame charges. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Rajgarh, initiated inquiries based on the FIR and police reports. The matter reached the Supreme Court after the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The core of this case lies in Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which deals with the removal and suspension of members of Panchayati Raj Institutions. The relevant portion of Section 38 is as follows:

“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:
xxx xxx xxx
(4) The State Government may suspend 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.”

Section 38(1) allows the State Government to remove a member for reasons such as refusal to act, incapacity, misconduct, or disgraceful conduct. Section 38(4) empowers the State Government to suspend a member if an inquiry has been initiated under Section 38(1) or if criminal proceedings involving moral turpitude are pending trial.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the case was a result of political rivalry, as the complainant is the son of the person who lost the election to the appellant.
• The appellant contended that the bail order indicated the lack of a prima facie case against him.
• The appellant argued that the suspension order was based solely on the FIR and not on any independent inquiry.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the suspension was based on a preliminary inquiry that revealed a prima facie case of “disgraceful conduct,” not solely on the police report.
• The respondent contended that the State Government has the power to suspend a person under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
• The respondent argued that the action was taken under the first limb of Section 38(4), which allows suspension when an inquiry has been initiated under Section 38(1).

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the suspension of the appellant, a Sarpanch, under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, was justified, and if so, whether it could continue indefinitely.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Ajit Singh & Anr. v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government and Anr. [(2009) 16 SCC 308] – Supreme Court of India: The court distinguished this case, stating that the formation of opinion by the Deputy Commissioner was found to be absent in that case, which is not the situation in the present case.
• Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994: The court analyzed the provisions related to the removal and suspension of members of Panchayati Raj Institutions.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the suspension of the Sarpanch was valid, as it was based on a preliminary inquiry and not solely on the FIR. However, the court emphasized that such suspension could not continue indefinitely. The court directed the respondent to conclude the proceedings initiated under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, by 30 April 2022. The suspension order was to remain operational only until that date.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ajit Singh & Anr. v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government and Anr. [(2009) 16 SCC 308]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the formation of opinion of the Deputy Commissioner was found to be absent in that case, which is not the situation in the present case.
• Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994: The Court analyzed the provision and stated that the suspension was valid but could not continue indefinitely.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the suspension of the Sarpanch did not become a tool for indefinite deprivation of office, especially in the context of political rivalries. The court emphasized that while the State Government has the power to suspend a member, such power must be exercised judiciously and within a reasonable time frame. The court also noted that the proceedings under Section 38(1) should be concluded expeditiously, and the suspension should not be prolonged indefinitely. The court also took into consideration that the principles of service jurisprudence do not apply in the case of a Sarpanch, as the period for which the Sarpanch had to act will not be restored to him.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the possibility of political rivalry and the fact that the principles of service jurisprudence do not apply to a Sarpanch. It emphasized that the suspension should not be prolonged indefinitely, and the proceedings should be concluded within a specific timeframe. The court also clarified that the decision should be based on the material presented before the competent authority and not solely on the FIR.

The court stated: “We do recognize an aspect of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that in cases of political rivalry, the process should not be permitted to be misused, more so, as the principles of service jurisprudence would not apply, as there is no question of restitution to the aggrieved party post determination of his conduct as the period for which the Sarpanch had to act, will not be restored to him.”

The court also noted: “That being the position, the suspension can also not continue in an ad infinitum manner, more so, when it has not to await any criminal proceedings.”

The court further clarified: “Needless to say that 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.”

Key Takeaways

• The suspension of a Sarpanch under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, cannot continue indefinitely.
• The proceedings initiated under Section 38(1) must be concluded within a reasonable time frame.
• The suspension should be based on a preliminary inquiry and not solely on the registration of an FIR.
• The decision to suspend a Sarpanch must be based on the material presented before the competent authority and not on the principles of criminal proceedings of proof beyond reasonable doubts.
• The principles of service jurisprudence do not apply to a Sarpanch.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent to conclude the proceedings initiated under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, on or before 30 April 2022. The suspension order was to remain operational only until that date. The court also directed the appellant to cooperate with the proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the suspension of a Sarpanch under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, cannot continue indefinitely. The Supreme Court clarified that while the State Government has the power to suspend a member, such power must be exercised judiciously and within a reasonable time frame. This judgment reinforces the principle that suspension should not be used as a tool for indefinite deprivation of office, especially in cases of political rivalry. It also clarifies that the decision to suspend must be based on a preliminary inquiry and not solely on the FIR.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sardar Meena vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. clarifies the limits on the suspension of a Sarpanch under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. While the court upheld the validity of the suspension based on a preliminary inquiry, it emphasized that such suspension cannot continue indefinitely. The court directed the respondent to conclude the proceedings within a specified timeframe, ensuring that the suspension is not used as a tool for indefinite deprivation of office. This judgment reinforces the principles of natural justice and the need for timely resolution of such matters.

Category

• Panchayati Raj Law
  • Section 38, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
  • Suspension of Panchayat Members
• Service Law
  • Suspension of Public Officials
  • Principles of Natural Justice

FAQ

Q: Can a Sarpanch be suspended indefinitely in Rajasthan?

A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that the suspension of a Sarpanch cannot continue indefinitely. The proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time frame.

Q: What is the basis for suspending a Sarpanch under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act?

A: A Sarpanch can be suspended if an inquiry has been initiated under Section 38(1) of the Act or if criminal proceedings involving moral turpitude are pending trial. The suspension should be based on a preliminary inquiry and not solely on the FIR.

Q: What does the Supreme Court’s judgment mean for other Panchayat members?

A: The principles laid down in this judgment apply to all members of Panchayati Raj Institutions, ensuring that their suspension is not prolonged indefinitely and that proceedings are conducted fairly and expeditiously.

Q: What is the timeline for concluding the suspension proceedings?

A: In this case, the Supreme Court directed the respondent to conclude the proceedings by 30 April 2022. The timeline may vary in other cases, but the principle of timely conclusion remains.

Q: Does a bail order mean that there is no prima facie case against the Sarpanch?

A: No, the Supreme Court clarified that a bail order is granted after investigations are complete and does not indicate the absence of a prima facie case.