SURESH CHANDRA SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949, has been preferred by the appellant-Suresh Chandra Singhal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. C. W. P. No. 3920/2004 (Suresh Chandra Singhal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) dated 27. 09. 2004 which was heard and dismissed alongwith a batch of several other writ petitions involving common questions of law. As a consequence of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant who had been suspended from functioning as the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Gangapur City, was allowed to remain under suspension till the conclusion of the enquiry, which was ordered to be conducted expeditiously by the Judicial officer to whom the enquiry has been entrusted. The appellant having specified period to function as member and Chairman of the Board, is suffering each day on account of pendency of the enquiry which is yet to be concluded and hence has preferred this appeal on several grounds including the ground of delay in concluding the enquiry.

(2.) THE facts of the case in so far as it is relevant to decide the controversy involved herein is that the appellant-petitioner who had first of all been elected as a member of the Municipal Board Gangapur City, on 20. 8. 2000 was further elected as a Chairman of the said Municipal Board on 22. 8. 2000.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge while dealing with the case of the appellant/petitioner alongwith other several similarly situated persons, who also were suffering the order of suspension holding different posts after having been elected on those posts, was pleased to rely upon a series of decisions of the Division Bench of this High Court and having relied upon them was pleased to hold that the consistent view of this Court on the controversy involved is that if the State Government is satisfied regarding the charges that they require a thorough and fare probe, and continuation in office of the delinquent may cause great loss to the finances of the institution, it may decide to refer those charges to a judicial officer for enquiry and the delinquent be served with a show-cause notice alongwith statement of allegations and he can also be suspended from his office simultaneously. THE writ petition filed by the petitioner was, therefore dismissed directing the petitioner to go through the enquiry which was ordered to be conducted expeditiously.