Rajesh Balia, J.- This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.2000 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt., Local Self Govt. Department, Jaipur whereby the petitioner, who is the Chairman of Municipal Board, Begun, has been placed under suspension under Sec. 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. (2). The brief facts leading to this case are that: in the last Municipal elections which were held in 1995, the petitioner was elected as Member, Municipal Board, Begun from Ward No. 5. Thereafter, he also came to be elected as Chairman of the said Municipal Board on 3.1997. It is alleged that on 12.1996 one Rameshwar Sharma made a complaint (Annex.1) against the petitioner that since the petitioner has filed his Vakalatnama in an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1996 Smt. Kamla Bai vs. Municipal Board, Begun) filed by one Smt. Kamla Devi against the Municipal Board, Begun in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh, he has incurred disqualification u/S. 26(xiii) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short the Act’). (3). The complaint (Annex. 1) itself discloses that the petitioner was employed as a legal practitioner on behalf of Smt. Kamla Bai against respondent Municipal Board in Cr. Case No. 361 of 1990, which was decided on 11.1996 and even after his election as a Ward Member of the respondent Municipal Board, he continued to engage himself in that case and did not withdraw his power. Moreover, even after the decision in that case on 11.1996, he filed an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge No. 2 Chittorgarh. Thus, he has incurred disqualification u/S. 26(xiii) of the Act and is, therefore, liable to be prosecuted under Sec. 63(xiii) of the Act. (4). On hearing about this complaint, the petitioner made an application on 13.1996 before the learned Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 1996 that he was engaged in the aforesaid criminal case in the year 1992 and since a complaint has been made that despite his election as Ward Member from Ward No. 5 of Municipal Board, Begun, he employed himself as a legal practitioner against the respondent Municipal Board, he may be permitted to withdraw his Vakalatnama. The said application was allowed on 18.3.1996 and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw his Vakalatnama. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his explanation on 18.6.1996 and requested for dropping of the complaint. Thereafter, nothing happened. However, after the expiry of about four years on completion of almost full term, he has been served with the suspension order Annex. 5 dated 7.2000. (5). According to the petitioner, in fact the State Govt. dropped the complaint and, therefore, it cannot be reviewed after the expiry of about 3-4 years. An additional affidavit was also filed by the petitioner on 10.7.2000 that in fact, Vakatatnama was filed by him in the aforesaid case on 19.1992 and while filing the appeal, no Vakalatnama was filed as in the appellate Court, there was no necessity of filing fresh Vakalatnama alongwith the appeal. Alongwilh this additional affidavit, he has also filed certified copy of the Vakalatnama which was filed by him in the trial Court on 19.1992. This fact is also not disputed by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. (6). I have heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.P. Vyas, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State. (7). It has been contended by Mr. M.S. Singhvi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Sec. 26(xiii) of the Act does not apply to a case where existence of employment as a Legal Practitioner against the Municipal Board in prior to the commencement of the term of the Board of which he has been elected. There is no prohibition against continuance of such employment/engagement. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Abdul Aziz vs. Manmath Kumar 1969 RLW 424. (8). Learned