RAM PRASAD MALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 22-5-1999 (Annexure 3) and the order dated 28-6-1999 (Annexure 5) whereby, the State Govt. directed to hold judicial inquiry de novo.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition in brief are that on the basis of complaint, an exploitation on the five charges was called for by the Dy. Secretary to the Local Self Government Department vide letter dated 29-9-1997 (Annexure1). Therefore, vide order dated 9-2-1999 (Annexure 2) it was conveyed by the aforesaid Dy. Secretary that upon preliminary inquiry prima facie the petitioner was found guilty therefore, under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, a decision by the State Govt. was taken to hold judicial inquiry against the petitioner on the charges framed in the charge sheet annexed to the order dated 9-2-1999 (Annexure 2). Then, the impugned order of suspension dated 22-5-1999 (Annexure 3) was passed against the petitioner consequent upon having not been satisfied with his explanation called for under memo dated 29-9-1997 (Annexure 1), and the petitioner was suspended from the post of Chairman, Municipal Board Karauli, and the judicial inquiry was ordered to be initiated. During the pendency of the inquiry before the Joint L.R. (II) Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, the petitioner on his application was informed by the inquiring authority vide letter dated 26-5-1999 that the departmental evidence has been closed and the petitioner was requested to adduce his evidence in defence on 1-5-1999, 12-5-1999 and 18-5-1999 and the inquiry was at the fag end. However, vide impugned order dated 28-6-1999 (Annexure 5) the State Govt. decided and directed to hold the judicial inquiry denovo under Sections 63(2) and 63(3) of the Act. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioner had also challenged the vires and validity of Section 63(4) of the Act but upon reply to the writ petition the respondent State raised preliminary objection as to the maintainabi-lity of the writ petition having regard to the earlier order dated 14-6-1999 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2871/99. Thereupon, the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition at hand vide order dated 14-7-1999 observed that in view of the earlier order dated 14-6-1999 wherein Mrs. Saraf did not challenge the vires of the Act, this writ petition be posted before the Single Bench making it clear that the validity of Section 63(4) cannot be questioned again in this writ petition.