HEM RAJ JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 4. 12. 2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order of suspension dated 26. 11. 2002 (Annex. 3) passed by the State Government (respondent No. 1) by which the petitioner was put under suspension in exercise of power under section 63 (4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1959") on the ground that under section 63 of the Act of 1959, a decision has been taken for judicial enquiry against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- THE petitioner was elected as Member, Municipal Board, Sangaria from Ward No. 19 in the elections held in Aug. 2000 and thereafter, he was elected as Chairperson, Municipal Board, Sangaria. THE case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 K. C. Bishnoi, who was at the relevant time Minister of State for Motor Garage, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, was close to Shri B. D. Kalla, who was at that time Minister for Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and therefore, the respondent No. 2 had been unauthorisedly interfering with the affairs of the Municipal Board, Sangaria and the respondent No. 2 was against the petitioner and he wanted to oust the petitioner from the office of Chairperson, Municipal Board, Sangaria. THE further case of the petitioner is that since the respondent No. 2 was eager to oust the petitioner from the office of the Chairperson, Municipal Board, Sangaria, therefore, he succeeded in issuing a notice Annex. 1 dated 15. 7. 2002 against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1959 and by that notice, explanation from the petitioner was sought for in respect of the allegations made in that notice. THE further case of the petitioner is that he filed a detailed reply to the said notice Annex. 1 through Annex. 2 on 26. 8. 2002 in which he denied all the allegations levelled against him in notice Annex. 1. According to the petitioner, all the allegations levelled against him in notice Annex. 1 are frivolous and baseless. THE further case of the petitioner is that vide impugned order dated 26. 11. 2002 (Annex. 3), he was placed under suspension and simultaneously, through order Annex. 4 dated 27. 11. 2002, the Collector, Hanumangarh authorized the Vice-Chairman, Municipal Board, Sangaria to discharge the duties of Chairperson in absence of the petitioner. In this writ petition, mainly the impugned suspension order Annex. 3 dated 26. 11. 2002 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main grounds are as follows:- (i) That all the charges levelled against the petitioner through notice Annex. 1 are frivolous one and they should be treated as negatived by seeing the reply Annex. 2 dated 26. 8. 2002 submitted by the petitioner. THErefore, when the impugned suspension order Annex. 3 was passed, there was no basis or material for passing it and thus, the impugned suspension order Annex. 3 is bad in law and should be quashed and set aside. (ii) That enquiry under Sec. 63 of the Act of 1959 cannot be said to have been commenced against the petitioner because on the date when the impugned suspension order Annex. 3 dated 26. 11. 2002 was passed, no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. Furthermore, the enquiry under section 63 of the Act of 1959 can be initiated only after a preliminary enquiry report is received and on the basis of that preliminary enquiry report, the State Government forms an opinion to hold regular enquiry and draw the charges. In other words, merely on the basis of preliminary enquiry report and without drawing the charges, the impugned suspension order Annex. 3 could have not been passed and therefore, from this point of view also, the impugned suspension order Annex. 3 is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 and the case of the respondent No. 1 is that the members of the Municipal Board, Sangaria wrote complaints against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner in capacity as Chairperson was missing the power, as he had arranged to dispose of the land which in fact was not vested in the Municipal Board and was vested in RIICO. A copy of the complaint is marked as Annex. R/1. THE further case of the respondent No. 1 is that after receipt of the complaint Annex. R/1, the Director, Local Self Government vide order dated 20. 12. 2001 appointed Regional Dy. Director, Local Self Department, Bikaner to conduct enquiry into the complaint made against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 1, the Regional Dy. Director conducted a detailed enquiry after inspecting the site and found the petitioner and some other persons prima facie guilty and he submitted his report to the State Government on 10. 6. 2002, a copy of which is marked as Annex. R/2. THE further case of the respondent No. 1 is that a bare perusal of the preliminary enquiry report Annex. R/2 reveals that charges were of serious nature and they were committed by the petitioner in capacity as Chairperson of the Municipal Board and thus, he misused official position and committed gross negligence, irregularity and misconduct and therefore, a show cause notice Annex. 1 dated 15. 7. 2002 under the provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1959 was issued against the petitioner and a reply to show cause notice Annex. 1 was filed by the petitioner thorough Annex. 2 dated 26. 8. 2002 and after considering the preliminary enquiry report Annex. R/2 dated 10. 6. 2002 and after seeing the reply of the petitioner Annex. 2 dated 26. 8. 2002, the State Government came to the conclusion that judicial enquiry be conducted against the petitioner and simultaneously, the petitioner was put under suspension through impugned suspension order Annex. 3 dated 26. 11. 2002 and looking to the above facts and circumstances, the impugned suspension order Annex. 3 was rightly passed against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 1, no doubt when the impugned order of suspension Annex. 3 was passed on 26. 11. 2002, no charge- sheet was served upon the petitioner, but later on, charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner through Annex. R/6 and Annex. R/7 on 2. 12. 2002 and serving of charge-sheet was not a condition precedent before issuing an order of suspension under Section 63 (4) of the Act of 1959 as held by this Court in Jan Mohammad vs. THE State of Rajasthan (1 ). For seriousness of the charges against the petitioner, findings recorded by the Regional Dy. Director in his report Annex. R/2 dated 10. 6. 2002 and later on, charge sheet in the shape of Annex. R/6 and Annex. R/7 may be referred to. According to the respondent No. 1, the proceedings can be said to have been commenced when the preliminary enquiry report is submitted to the Government and the same is considered by the Government and the Government applied its mind and came to the conclusion that a further probe in the matter was essential and in such circumstances, order of suspension could be passed under section 63 (4) of the Act of 1959 and thus, the submission of the petitioner that serving of charge-sheet is a condition precedent before passing the impugned suspension order Annex. 3 is wholly untenable. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. A reply to the writ petition was also filed by the respondent No. 2 and the case of the petitioner that he was misusing authority against the petitioner with no ground has been denied and hence, it was prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) THUS, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that all the charges levelled against the petitioner in the notice Annex. 1 are frivolous or groundless or baseless.