1. - This matter is finally heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The only grievance expressed in this writ petition is that the petitioner could not have been suspended vide order dated July 6, 2001 by the respondents on the ground that he was arrested in a criminal case and was in judicial custody as it could not have been said that the criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner at that time.

3. The contextual facts depict that the petitioner was placed under suspension in view of sub-section (4) of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' of 1994). Sub-section (4) of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 provides that the State Government may suspend any member including a chairperson or a deputy chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution against whom an enquiry has been initiated under sub-section (1) or against whom any criminal proceedings in regard to an offence involving moral turpitude is pending trial in a Court of law and such person shall stand debarred from taking part in any act or proceeding of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned while being under such suspension.

4. A look on