PRADEEP HINGER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected as Member of the Municipal Council, Pali in the month of November, 2004 from Ward No. 11 on the basis of ticket given by the Congress Party and was elected as Chairman of the Municipal Council, Pali on 27-11-2004. THE petitioner has been suspended from the post of Chairman,municipal Council, Pali by the State Government under Section 63 (4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 vide order dated 11-6-2007, hence the petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order passed by respondent no. 1 dated 11-6-2007 (Annex. 11) by which the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Chairman, Municipal Council, Pali.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was discharging the duties with utmost sincerity and honesty. In last more than two and half years of the tenure, no serious complaint of any misconduct has been made against the petitioner except some false complaints made by Shri Gyan Chand Parakh, MLA, Pali. Because of prejudice of rival political party, the ruling party in the State of Rajasthan and the petitioner being member of Congress Party, the complaints were submitted against the petitioner by the local MLA. The petitioner also submitted that he is aspirant for the MLA seat from Pali as Congress Party candidate, therefore, the local sitting MLA who is from BJP wants to tarnish the image of the petitioner. On the basis of these complaints, the Additional Director, Directorate, Local Bodies came to Pali for enquiry. The Additional Director conducted the thorough enquiry in each and every allegation levelled in the complaints and has thereafter submitted his report on 24-1-2007. The copy of the complaints made against the petitioner, in bunch has been placed on record as Annex-1-The copy of the enquiry report dated 24-1-2007 has been placed on record as Annex-2- ACCORDING to the petitioner, in the said report dated 24-1-2007 submitted by the Additional Director, Local Bodies to the Government, has proposed some action against the LDC and UDC of the Municipal Council, Pali but gave a specific finding that the Chairman-petitioner is not involved in tempering with the record of the Municipal Council, Pali particularly in the pattas of some plots for which complaints have been lodged. In the report it is also specifically observed that when the irregularity in respect of Pattas no. 5 and 23a came in the knowledge of the Chairman, he immediately stopped permission of the construction over the said plots. However, in the report it is mentioned that the Chairman has adopted a lax attitude by not filing FIR in the police. It was further observed in the report that in the matter of land allotment to INTUC, a wing of the Congress Party, the Commissioner as well as the Chairman of the Board have not taken effective proceedings when the INTUC has used the plot allotted on concessional rate for commercial purposes by raising several shops over it and, therefore, the explanation should be sought from the Commissioner/chairman of the Municipal Council, Pali.

(3.) IT is also submitted that before passing order dated 11-6-2007, the respondent no. 2 has not applied his mind on the explanation given by the petitioner and also has not considered the enquiry report dated 24-1-2007 (Annex. 2) submitted by the Additional Director, Local Bodies. According to the petitioner, the Additional Director specifically gave a finding that the petitioner was not involved in tempering with the record of the Municipal Council, Pali and after knowing about the irregularities in some pattas, the Chairman immediately stopped the permission for raising construction over the disputed plots. In the explanation Annex. 10, the petitioner specifically clarified that in respect of plot no. 5, he has already set up a Committee way back on 25-2-2006 and the enquiry committee has not submitted its report till date. The petitioner also made it clear that immediately after direction of the State Government on 2-2-2007, the petitioner proceeded to lodge FIR against the culprits. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of any inaction on his part. In respect of plot no. 23-A, there is not a single whisper in the enquiry report (Annex. 2) about the involvement of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in the enquiry report, the Additional Director specifically observed that in case of violation of conditions of allotment by the INTUC, the board has failed to take effective steps and it has not been held by the enquiry officer that solely the Chairman has failed to take effective steps. According to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be blamed for any irregularity, misconduct or abuse of power as Chairman of the Municipal Council, Pali as the observations in the enquiry report are in favour of the petitioner and some observations are not reflecting against the petitioner's conduct.