Caught 'Red-Handed' Accepting Bribe, Dishonest Official Deserves No Sympathy: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Suspension Order Of Sarpanch

While upholding the suspension order of a Sarpanch allegedly caught accepting a bribe, Rajasthan High Court has remarked that a dishonest official deserves no sympathy or leniency.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur noted that the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act were unambiguous. No further fact-finding preliminary enquiry was required as contemplated in Rule 22 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 to proceed against the delinquent Sarpanch under Section 38 [Removal & Suspension] of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the court clarified.

“This Court is firmly of the view that in the cases in which an office bearer or an officer is caught red handed and is being proceeded under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there is no scope of taking a lenient view and therefore, in an appropriate case, if the facts are so clear which do not warrant any preliminary enquiry to be conducted….”, the court held.

Therefore, the bench sitting at Jodhpur considered the chargesheet issued to the Sarpanch under Rule 22(2) of 1996 Rules just and proper, based on which the state government proceeded against him under Section 38 of the Act. By confirming the procedure followed by the authorities, the High Court upheld the suspension order dated 24.01.2024.

On another note, the petitioner was directly handed over the notice and order dated 24.01.2024, the court observed.

“…Since, the petitioner was present in person at the time of handing over the notice / order dated 24.01.2024, he was confronted with the questions and presumably he has averred his contentions, but the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner could not have been in a position to deny the factual details as narrated above…”, Justice Mathur opined.

The court also felt that the suspension order was a sine qua non when the petitioner was kept away from work to prevent interference in enquiry and remained incarcerated for over a month before getting bailed out by a coordinate bench of the High Court itself. All of the aforementioned suggests that the petitioner was prima facie involved in the incident mentioned in the F.I.R., the court added.

“In the opinion of this Court, it was not incumbent upon the State Government to take recourse to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 before initiating the action as per sub-rule 2 of Rule 22 against the petitioner…”, the court concluded.

The petitioner, Sarpanch of Jadana Panchayat in Chittorgarh District, was arrested on 03.12.2023 while accepting a bribe of Rs 2,40,000 in the course of discharging his functions. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department of the state acted hastily, without giving due regard to Rule 22(1) of the 1996 Rules and the prerequisite enquiry stipulated therein.

Advocate Parvez Khan Moyal appeared for the petitioner-Sarpanch facing suspension.

Case Title: Sanjay Sukhwal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1960/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 36

Click Here To Read/ Download Order