Disqualification Under Panchayati Raj Act Arises Only After Conviction or Framing of Charges for Offence Punishable with Over 5 Years
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the removal of Iqbal Chhipa from the post of Administrator, Gram Panchayat Roopangrah, Panchayat Samiti Kishangarh, Ajmer, holding that mere registration of an FIR, arrest or filing of a charge-sheet does not by itself attract disqualification under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
Justice Anоop Kumar Dhand observed that disqualification is attracted only in the circumstances specifically prescribed under Section 19 of the Act.
For the context, the petitioner had challenged the order dated June, 2026, whereby he was removed from the post of Administrator of Gram Panchayat Roopangrah. He submitted that his removal was based merely on the registration of the FIR, his arrest and subsequent filing of the charge-sheet.
Examines Section 19 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act
The High Court examined Section 19(g) and 19(gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which prescribe circumstances disqualifying a person from being elected or continuing as a member of a Panchayati Raj Institution.
Under Section 19(g), a person becomes disqualified where he has been convicted of an offence by a competent court and sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more, subject to the statutory conditions.
Under Section 19(gg), disqualification arises where a person is under trial before a competent court which has taken cognizance of an offence and charges have been framed for an offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or more.
FIR, Arrest or Charge-Sheet Alone Do Not Cause Disqualification
The Court categorically held that:
“The post of Sarpanch does not become vacant merely upon registration of an F.I.R., arrest or filing of charge-sheet against him.”
State Defended Removal Over Serious Offences involving moral turpitude.
The Court clarified that disqualification would arise only upon conviction followed by a sentence of six months or more, or where the competent court has taken cognizance and framed charges for an offence punishable with imprisonment of more than five years.
The Court noted that neither cognizance had been taken nor charges had been framed against the petitioner for any offence punishable with imprisonment of more than five years.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had not been found guilty or sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more.
Accordingly, the Court held that the removal order was not sustainable in law.
The High Court consequently quashed and set aside the impugned removal order and allowed the writ petition.