1999 Supreme(Raj) 886
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.C.Verma, J.
Smt. S. Kanta Ranawat - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5893 of 1998.
Decided On : 21-01-1999
The mandatory provisions of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, regarding the removal of members, including suspension, must be strictly complied with.
Headnote:
MUNICIPALITIES - REMOVAL OF MEMBERS - SUSPENSION - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - CHARGE-SHEET - JUDICIAL INQUIRY - MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 63 OF THE RAJASTHAN MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1959 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected member and Chairman of the Municipal Board, Bundi, challenged her suspension under Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, alleging non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suspension order was illegal and quashed it, finding that: * A preliminary enquiry under Section 63(1) of the Act is a precondition for suspension under Section 63(4). * A show cause notice must be issued to the member concerned before suspension. * A charge-sheet must be framed and served on the member before suspension. * A judicial inquiry must be conducted before suspension. * The mandatory provisions of Section 63(1), (2), and (3) of the Act were not complied with in the present case.
Issues: Whether the suspension order passed under Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, was legal and valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on several precedents to hold that the suspension order was illegal. It held that the preliminary enquiry, show cause notice, charge-sheet, and judicial inquiry are mandatory requirements under Section 63 of the Act and that these requirements were not met in the present case.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the suspension order, and awarded costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner Smt. S. Kanta Ranawat was the elected member of the Municipal Board and was also elected as Chairman of the said Municipal Board, Bundi. The seat of the Chairman was reserved for woman candidate. The Board is elected for five years. It is stated that there was rivalry amongst the members of the Board and the rival group belongs to the group of Finance Minister Shri K.K. Goyal who is a dose friend of the respondent No. 3 Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma who was holding the charge of Cabinet Minister for Local Self Government at the time of filing of the writ petition. It is stated that said Shri K.K. Goyal had always been a rival for the petitioner ever since her election to the Chairman and had been creating problems in her way by making false and frivolous complaints with the motive that Vice Chairman Shri Suresh Jindal should occupy the position of Chairman in case the petitioner is either got suspended or removed in collusion with the group of opposite camp. It is stated that a complaint was made to respondent No. 2 on false or frivolous allegations. Number of complaints and some reports submitted in this regard have been attached as Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4. Even though the said allegations were repeatedly made and enquired into and nothing was found against the petitioner, but still vide Annexure-8 dated 24.2.1998, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on the allegations mentioned therein which was duly replied by the petitioner vide Annexure-9. The allegations were in regard to making of payment to the daily wage earners, not providing weekly rest to daily wage labours and also in regard to order of promotion to one Shri Mahendra Singh. It was replied by the petitioner that the functions as mentioned in the allegations were actually of the Chief Executive Officer and not of the petitioner; it was so stated by the petitioner in Annexure-9. It is stated that at one time it was decided by the Secretary of the Department to drop the show cause notice Annexure-8 having not been proved. The petitioner has reproduced certain nothings as appearing on the file in the writ petition itself at page 9. It is stated that the petitioner was surprised to receive a letter Annexure-10 dated 11.11.1998 suspending the petitioner under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. It is alleged that she has been ordered to be suspended so that Shri Suresh Jindal may be handed over the charge of Chairman who may be helpful to Shri Goyal for election to the seat of M.L.A. in the ensuring elections. The impugned order Annexure-10 is attacked on the ground that it does not confirm the mandatory provisions of Section 63 as no charge-sheet had been issued to the petitioner and until and unless a charge-sheet is issued, the petitioner could not have been suspended. It is also attacked on the ground that from the bare reading of Annexure-8, no misconduct had been made out from the charges of show cause notice dated 24.2.1998 or in the alternative in the enquiry held, the petitioner stood exonerated. It is further submitted that the action is being taken against the petitioner with a mala fide intention and the petitioner being elected member is being victimized.
2. Reply has been filed by the respondents. It is stated that as many as 20 members had made complaints against the petitioner. The allegations of mala fide are denied. It is stated that the State Government had power to appoint an enquiry officer. It is further stated in the reply that some preliminary enquiry was held vide Annexure-3 by the Executive Officer and report was submitted and on 11.11.1998 it was decided to suspend the petitioner. The enquiry report has been attached as Annexure R-3 and the charge-sheet dated 11.11.1998 as Annexure-4.
3. A replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioner denying the averments made in the written statement. It was further stated that even the so called preliminary enquiry was held at the back of the petitioner and
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
