LAWS(RAJ)-1992-5-55

JAN MOHD Vs. STATE

Decided On May 12, 1992
JAN MOHD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgement.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of these two writ petitions are as under : (1) Facts of Jan Mohd.'s case The case of the petitioner Jan Mohd. is that in the general elections of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, 30 members were elected and out of them, 15 belongs to Bhartiya Janta Party and the remaining 15 belongs to Congress-I party and in the election of Chairman of Municipal Board, Sardar-shahar, in the toss, the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Board. According to him, on account of political reasons, members of the Bhartiya Janta Party, which is presently ruling in the State, always tried to remove the petitioner from the Chairmanship. He has submitted that recently on the complaints of the members of the ruling party in the State about the affairs of the Board, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur and in that enquiry, he has submitted that he is nowhere involved in any of the works executed, and every work was executed after the approval of the Board. It has been submitted that the integrity of the petitioner is beyond doubt. According to the petitioner, as the members of the ruling party were determined to remove the petitioner from the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Sardarshahar for ulterior motive; they persuaded the State Govt. to suspend the petitioner from the post of Chairman because their efforts failed to remove him. However, the petitioner was served with a notice (Annexure-1) and the statement of allegations (Annexure-2) and by order (Annexure-3), he has been suspended from the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Sardarshahar under S. 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) It has been contended that the sus-pension of an elected member cannot be equated with the suspension of a Govt. ser-vant inasmuch as the suspension of an elected member amounts to his temporary removal and, therefore, all sorts of precautions should be taken before suspending an elected mem-ber. The temporary removal of an elected member without affording him an oppor-tunity of being heard is violative of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the suspension order has not been served on petitioner as yet and he obtained a copy of it from the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board.