JAGDISH NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners-Sarva Shri Jagdish Narayan Sharma, Mustak Ahmed and Abdul Ajij, who are elected Ward Members of Municipal Board, Merta City, have through this writ petition challenged their suspension order dated 5-1-1994 (Annex. 7) and prayed that the same be set aside and respondents be directed to allow them to participate in the meetings of the said Municipal Board as well as the meetings of Sub-Committees wherein they are members. They have also prayed that the First Information Report (Annex. 5) lodged against them be quashed.

(2.) Briefly the relevant facts are that petitioners were elected as Ward Members of the Municipal Board, Merta City in the month of August, 1992. Petitioner-Jagdish Narayan Sharma contested as an independent candidate, while petitioners-Abdul Ajij and Mustak Ahmed were nominees of Janta Dal and Congress (I) Party respectively. The Bhartiya Janta Party got the majority in the said Municipal Board (hereinafter referred to as Board). The Board was constituted under the Chairmanship of the nominee of the Bhartiya Janta Party. The petitioners have alleged that on the national panorama Congress (I) Party and Bhartiya Janta Party are at loggerheads and similar is the case in the Board. They have further alleged that from the very beginning the members of the Bhartiya Janta Party were annoyed with them and had strained relations with them. They had complained against the working of the Chairman of the Board regarding many illegalities and irregularities committed by him in carrying out various works under the Nehru Rozgar Scheme in the year 1992 and in giving appointments to Nakedars. Since the petitioners had made repeated complaints on the working of the Board as also the working of Shri Suraj Meghwal, Ward Member and Vice-Chairman, Shri Nathmal Birla, who is also the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, they were annoyed with them. It is the case of petitioners that on 27-12-1993 at 7 p.m., F.I.R. Annexure 5 was lodged by Shri Suraj Mal Meghwal, Ward Member, who was elected as a nominee of Bhartiya Janta Party, at Police Station, Merta City, wherein it was alleged that on that day during the meeting of the Board, petitioner-Jagdish Narayan Sharma started hurling abuses and caught hold the collar of Shri Nath Mal Birla, Vice-Chairman and started beating him by inflicting slaps and fist blows. It was further alleged therein that when Shri Suraj Mal intervened, petitioner-Jagdish Narayan gave a fist blow on his mouth and also hurled abuses and that petitioners-Mustak Ahmed and Abdul Ajij also started abusing the members of the Board. On the basis of F.I.R. Ex. P. 5, the S.H.O., Police Station, Merta City registered a case under Section 323, I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioners. The petitioners have averred that on 27-12-1993 at 8.15 p.m. another First Information Report Annexure 6 was lodged at Police Station, Merta City by one Shri Dharmendra against Sarva Shri Nathmal Birla, Surajmal Meghwal, Chhotu Vaishnav and two other Ward members, wherein it was alleged that on the same day at 11 a.m. he had gone to the Municipal Board, Merta City to file a complaint against one Chaina Ram Mali, who had blocked and obstructed a general path way (Aam Rasta), that he had requested the afore-mentioned Ward members, who were sitting in the Chamber of the Chairman, for removing the said obstruction and that thereupon the afore-mentioned Ward members started hurling abuses to him. In F.I.R. (Annex. 6) it was further alleged that Ward Members, Chhotu Vaishnav and Nav Ratan Singhvi Caught hold of Dharmendra while Nathmal Birla, Surajmal Meghwal and Suraj Arora inflicted injuries to him by fist blows and that Shyam Parishar and Mustak Ahmed rescued him. On that report, a case under Sections 147, 323, I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also registered. It is alleged that thereafter petitioner No. 2 Mustak Ahmed received the impugned order dated 5-1-1994 (Annex. 7), whereby petitioners were suspended by the State Government under Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (in short the Act). It was mentioned therein that since criminal proceedings have commenced against the petitioners, therefore, it was contemplated to hold an enquiry against them under S. 63 of the Act and that in exercise of the powers under Section 63(4) the State Government has suspended the petitioners with immediate effect. It is alleged that the impugned suspension order Annexure-7 has not been served upon other petitioners in accordance with the provisions of S. 250 of the Act. The petitioners have asserted that the suspension order Annexure 7 has been passed without application of mind and in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions of the Act and is unfair, unjust and illegal. According to them the investigation in the case registered against them, vide F.I.R. Annexure 5 was still pending and, therefore, their suspension during the pendency of the investigation is unjust, unfair and uncalled for. They have alleged that since a similar criminal case was also registered against the Chairman, Shri Suraj Arora, Vice-Chairman Nathmal Birla and Ward members, Surajmal, Nav Ratan Singhvi and Chhotu Vaishnav, but no order suspending them has been passed by the respondents. Thus the action of the respondents suspending the petitioners is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover neither any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners nor any preliminary enquiry was conducted against them. Thus, proceedings under Section 63 (1) has not yet commenced against them, and, therefore, the impugned suspension order Annex. 7 also suffers from lack of jurisdiction and patent illegality which deserves to be quashed.

(3.) The respondents in their counter have taken certain preliminary objections. Firstly, this joint petition on behalf of three petitioners is not maintainable. Secondly, the petitioners have suppressed the material and important fact that after investigation in the F.I. R. Annex. 6 lodged by Shri Dharmendra, the police has submitted a final report. The petitioners have made incorrect statement that all the petitioners had contested the election as Ward members as the nominees of the Congress (I) Party, because as a matter of fact petitioner-Jagdish Narayan Sharma contested the election as an independent candidate, while petitioner Abdul Ajij was the nominee of the Janta Dal. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. On merits, it has been asserted that the members of the Board inter se did not have any strained relations, that the allegations of irregularities and illegalities committed by the Chairman were vague and bald. It was admitted that Shri Surajmal Meghwal, Ward Member, had lodged the F.I.R. Annex. 5, whereupon a case was registered against the petitioners. The respondents have averred that the copy of the F.I.R. Annex. 5 and proceedings of the Board's meeting dated 27-12-1993 duly signed by the Chairman and Executive Officer of the Board, were submitted to the State Government, that after examining the matter the State Government decided to have a detailed enquiry under Section 63 of the Act and simultaneously issued the impugned suspension order Annex. 7 under Section 63(4) of the Act, which was sent to all the petitioners by post. The copies of the suspension order Annex. 7 were also sent by the Board under registered post to petitioners-Jagdish Narayan and Abdul Ajij, who deliberately avoided its service. The respondents have refuted that the suspension order Annex. 7 was passed without application of mind. They have asserted that it is not at all necessary to draw the statement of charge and to send the same to the disciplinary officer before suspending a Ward Member. It has been submitted that the petitioners had the knowledge of the suspension order Annex. 7 that the provisions of Section 250 of the Act are not applicable and that there was no violation of any mandatory provision of the Act. The respondents have maintained that no opportunity of hearing is envisaged before passing the suspension order under Section 63(4) of the Act and the opportunity of hearing is only required to be given during detailed enquiry under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 63 of the Act. It has been asserted that no copy of the F.I.R. Annex. 6 was sent to the Government, that informant Dharmendra was not Ward Member and that even after investigation the police has submitted a final report in that case. This clearly shows that the F.I.R. Annex. 6 was lodged with extraneous consideration and as such there is no question of any discrimination.