The suspension of a Sarpanch under Section 17(4a) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, must be based on a preliminary enquiry conducted in accordance with Rules 20 and 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961.

SHRIMAL, J.

( 1 ) SHRI Bajranglal was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Begas, which falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur. On a complaint filed against the Sarpanch by Ram Prakash and others regarding misconduct and neglect of duties committed by him, an enquiry was Initiated. A report along with a forwarding letter, dated March 14, 1980, was sent to the government. After considering the report, a statement of charges (Annexure 3)was served on the petitioner. A notice dated May 19, 1980 (Annexure 2), calling upon the Sarpanch to show cause in writing why the charges should not be inquired into, was issued and May 28, 1980, was fixed for the purpose. After having received the reply (Annexure 4) and considering the same on merits, the Government decided to have the enquiry into the charges, mentioned in annexure 3, conducted. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur, was appointed as enquiry Officer; vide order, dated June 9, 1980 (Annexure 5 ). The Sarpanch was placed under suspension under Section 17 (4a) of the Rajas than Panchyat act, 1953 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was debarred from taking part in any act or proceedings of the Panchayat so long as he remainded under suspension, The suspension order was also published in Navjyoti Daily, dated July 31, 1980.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, feeling aggrieved against the order of suspension filed the present writ petition before a Single Bench of this Court, claiming the following reliefs:--

(a) the notice dated May 7, 1980 (Annexure 1), notice dated May 19, 1980, along with charge-sheet (Annexures 2 and 3) and notice dated june 9, 1980 (Annexure 5), being without jurisdiction be declared illegal and the same may be quashed and set aside;

(b) the suspension order, issued by the State Government against the petitioner under Sub-section (4a) of Section 17 of the Act, be declared illegal and being without jurisdiction be ordered to be quashed and set aside;

(c) a direction may be issued to the State Government and the enquiry Officer not to proceed with the proposed enquiry against the petitioner;

(d) the respondents be restrained from proceeding with the enquiry, which is in contravention of the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961.

( 3 ) THE writ petition is based on the grounds that there is no evidence to establish prima facie the charge of making over-writing in the muster-rolls or making ante-dated entries or misappropriating the amount received in the cattle-pound or misusing the money of the Panchayat. The muster-rolls were kept by other persons and not by the Sarpanch. Similarly, the amount of the cattle-pound, for keeping the animals, was received by the concerned peon and ii was his function to deposit the same with the proper authority. Besides, all the expenses incurred by the petitioner had been duly approved by the panchayat through its resolutions. No preliminary enquiry as required by Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1961) had been made. The Deputy development Commissioner (Enquiries) and Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, had had no authority to make enquiry under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1961 and the enquiry so made is ex facie bad and is without jurisdiction. No report of any preliminary enquiry had ever been submitted to the Collector, Jaipur, for his decision under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 20 and the Collector had not submitted any report along with his recommendation to the Government or to any officer or authority invested with the powers to deal under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act. In the absence of a proper enquiry, no charge-sheet could have been served and no suspension order could have been passed. The order of suspension is bad on account of the mala fides of respondents Nos. 6 and 7. It was further pleaded that Section 17 (4a) of the Act was