The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for the State Government to pass orders in conformity with the findings of the Judicial Enquiry Officer, as stipulated in Section 63(3) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.

R.R. Yadav, J.-By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality of his suspension from the office of Chairman of Municipal Board, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, passed by State Government on 6-3-1998, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and further prays to reinstate him on the aforesaid office with Immediate effect, in conformity with the findings dated 15-4-1998, submitted by a Judicial Enquiry Officer of the rank of District Judge under Sub-section (3) of Section 63 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as “Act No. 38 of 1959”) appointed by State Government under subsection (2) of the said Section.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition which are necessary to dispose it off are that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of Municipal Board, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, for a fixed statutory period and was functioning as such. It is borne out from the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition that vide Order dated 6-3-98, the petitioner was placed under suspension, on the charge of having one more child on 20-10-97. The main charge against the petitioner was that he has incurred disqualification under

Sub-Clause (e) of Clause (xiv) of Section 26 of Act No. 38 of 1959 wherein, It is clearly provided that the birth within three years from the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Second Amendment) Act, 1992, hereinafter in this clause referred to as the date of such commencement, of an additional child shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of the disqualification mentioned in Clause (xiv) and a person having more than two children excluding child, if any, born within three years from the date of such commencement, shall not be disqualified under that clause for so long as the number of children he had on the date of commencement does not increase.

3. Toenquire into the aforesaid disqualification, a Judicial Enquiry Officer under Sub-section (2) of Section 63 of Act No. 38 of 1959, is required to be appointed by the State Government, after preliminary enquiry. The State Government had appointed Joint Legal Remembrancer (II), as the Judicial Enquiry Officer, who, in turn, served a charge-sheet upon the petitioner on 17-3-98, a copy where of is filed and marked as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is further evident from the perusal of the averments made in paragraph-S of the writ petition that the Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 15-4-98, found that the charge against the petitioner is not proved. Accordingly he sent the record along with his aforesaid findings to the State Government, as envisaged under Sub-section (3) of the aforesaid section,

4. It is apparent on the face of record that the State Government did not agree with the findings of the Judicial Enquiry Officer and decided to order a re-enquiry vide its order dated 29-7-98, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In second time, the State Government appointed Joint Legal Remembrancer (I), as the Judicial Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the same charge, about the disqualification of the petitioner, within the meaning of Sub-clause (e) of Clause (xiv) of Section 26 of Act No. 38 of 1959 which was already enquired by a Judicial Enquiry Officer of the rank of a District Judge as stated hereinabove. It is borne out from the perusal of the record that the Joint Legal Remembrancer (I), after examining the witnesses, named in paragraph-7 of the writ petition, again exonerated the petitioner from the charge levelled against him. The second time Joint Legal Remembrancer (I) sent the record, along with his findings, to the State Government, and the State Government, instead of passing an order in conformity with those findings, again ordered for re-enquiry and appointed Joint Legal Remembrancer (II) as the Enquiry Officer, vide its order dated 19-8-99, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

5