MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging impugned order dated 23.07.2008 (Annex. -1O) whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Ward Member and declared disqualified to contest the election for six years. Although the petitioner has raised so many grounds to challenge the said order; but, while not pressing the other grounds, the petitioner has prayed that the order impugned is against the principles of natural justice and, before passing the impugned order dated 23.07.2008, the authority of the respondent has not supplied copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and, also, did not afford an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish his explanation. Further, it is stated that the proceedings resulted in removal of the duly elected member of the Board which is quasi -judicial in nature, therefore, at the time of passing such order, it is also required to grant proper opportunity to the incumbent against whom the order is to be passed by the competent authority so as to provide him an opportunity to submit his explanation.

(2.) IT is also urged before this Court by the petitioner that the order impugned Annex. -1O dated 23.07.2008 is not a speaking order and has been passed by the authority concerned without recording any reasons; therefore, it is totally without application of mind. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the quasi -judicial authority is bound to pass a reasoned speaking order but, in this case, while accepting the judicial enquiry in toto, the competent authority has passed in the impugned order which is not tenable in the eye of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgment of this Court reported in (1999) 1 WLC 440, in which, it has been held by the co -ordinate Bench of this Court that after completion of the enquiry by the Judicial Officer the respondents are required to furnish the copy of the enquiry report to the incumbent and after obtaining explanation from him proper order can be passed.

(3.) LEARNED Addl. Advocate General as well as counsel for the Municipal Board, -however, vehemently contended that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority after taking into consideration the finding reached upon enquiry conducted by member of Higher Judicial Service, therefore, as per the language of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, if no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, then, the matter is not required to be sent back for deciding the same afresh after providing opportunity of hearing after supplying copy of the enquiry report. Learned Counsel for the Municipal Board, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, while placing reliance upon the apex Court judgment reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727, submits that if no prejudice is caused then, as per the said judgment decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected because the petitioner was at liberty to obtain copy of the enquiry report if he was having any grievance with regard to the said judicial enquiry,