MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dtd. 7/10/2024 passed by the respondents in exercise of the powers contained under Sec. 39 (6) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009') by which the petitioner, elected Chairperson, Municipal Council, Dausa has been placed under suspension.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as Chairperson, Municipal Council, Dausa on 13/12/2020. Thereafter, a show cause notice along with charge-sheet was served upon her with regard to certain irregularities found in her functioning. Counsel submits that vide show cause notice dtd. 10/9/2024, five charges were levelled against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the charges, levelled against the petitioner, refer to any functional irregularities or financial loss caused by the petitioner to the respondents. Counsel submits that the charges are not such, which require suspension of a public representative. Counsel submits that the enquiry was initiated on the basis of some complaints made against the petitioner, wherein charges were levelled but the preliminary enquiry report was not taken into account and the petitioner has been placed under suspension. Counsel submits that the charge No. 4 relates to the failure to conduct 6 executive meetings of the Board in a year. Counsel submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the State Counsel to provide details with regard to other Municipal Councils/Boards wherein six consecutive meetings were not conducted in a particular year. Counsel submits that in response to the aforesaid, a query was raised by the respondents and they have placed on record, a chart of 282 Municipal Council/Board which indicate that in 52 Municipal Councils/ Boards, no meeting was conducted in a year and in 110 Municipal Councils/Boards meeting was conducted once in a year and in 76 Municipal Councils /Boards two meetings were conducted in a year. Likewise in all other Boards, four meetings were conducted in a year. Counsel submits that except the petitioner, action has not been taken against any of the Chairperson of the concerned Boards/ Municipal Councils. Counsel submits that the aforesaid exercise has been done against the petitioner with malafide intentions and ulterior motives. Counsel submits that meeting of the Municipal Council could not be conducted due to imposition of Model Code of Conduct of elections. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the judicial proceedings being conducted against her but her suspension is not warranted for such charges, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments.

(3.) Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has acted in a disgraceful manner by misusing her power and position as Chairperson of the Municipal Council. Counsel submits that lakhs and crores of rupees were utilized by the Municipal Council in construction of a community hall, funeral ground, etc. whereon the name plates (plaque) of her father- in- law was affixed by the petitioner. Counsel submits that when the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, it was found that crores of rupees were misused by her and even pattas were issued in her tenure in the name of her family members and various files were found to be misplaced. Counsel submits that everything has happened at the instance of the petitioner. Counsel submits that though, as per the provisions contained under Sec. 51 of the Act of 2009, the Chairperson/Municipal Council/Board is required to conduct minimum six consecutive meetings, in a particular year but there is no mechanism available with the State to manage the same and it is the business of the concerned Municipal Council/ Board to comply with the provisions of law, but whenever complaints are received in this regard, actions are taken against the concerned personnel. Counsel submits that in all, four complaints were received pertaining to this charge, where in the Municipal Board, Indregarh and Ladun, the matters are in process and in the case of Municipal Board, Ajmer, the enquiry is in process and appropriate action would be taken against all those personnel, at the appropriate stage, after following the due procedure contained under the law. Counsel submits that the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sonam Lakra (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the said matter relates to Panchayat and removal of the Sarpanch, while in the instant matter, suspension of Chairperson, Municipal Council is under challenge. Counsel submits that even in the case of Nandlal (Supra) the scope of interference with regard to suspension of Chairperson of Municipal Board has been considered and the same is found to be very narrow and limited, which cannot be exercised in a routine manner. Counsel submits that looking to the misconduct and disgraceful conduct of the petitioner and with regard to the complaint received, a detailed enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the same, charge-sheet has been served on her and now judicial proceedings are initiated. Hence, under these circumstances, order under Sec. 39 (6) of the Act of 2009 was passed whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. Counsel submits that in view of the arguments made hereinabove, interference of this Court is not warranted. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Devender Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14381/2023 on 21/11/2023.