The proceedings against a delinquent Member/Chairman of a Municipal Board under section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 commence when the State Government considers the report of the preliminary inquiry and makes up its mind to take action for the removal of the Member/Chairman under section 63(2) of the Act. The State Government is competent to pass an order of suspension at this stage in exercise of its supervisory authority, and there is no requirement for a pre-decisional hearing before passing the order of suspension.

Headnote:
MUNICIPALITIES ACT - SUSPENSION OF CHAIRMAN - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT - COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS - STAGE OF COMMENCEMENT - PRELIMINARY INQUIRY - CONSIDERATION OF REPORT - MAKING UP OF MIND TO TAKE ACTION - SUSPENSION ORDER - VALIDITY - MALA FIDES - ALLEGATIONS - PROOF - FOUNDATION OF SUSPENSION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - DELAY IN INQUIRY - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an elected Chairman of the Municipal Board, Kekri, was suspended by the State Government under sub-sec. (4) of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (the Act) on the basis of a preliminary inquiry report alleging serious irregularities and misconduct in the discharge of his duties. The petitioner challenged the validity of the suspension order on various grounds, including that the proceedings against him had not commenced and that the order was mala fide.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the proceedings against the petitioner had commenced when the State Government considered the report of the preliminary inquiry and made up its mind to take action for the removal of the petitioner under section 63(2) of the Act. The Court further held that the State Government was competent to pass an order of suspension at this stage in exercise of its supervisory authority, and that there was no requirement for a pre-decisional hearing before passing the order of suspension. The Court also rejected the petitioner's contention that the order was mala fide, finding that the allegations of mala fides were vague and unsubstantiated. The Court also held that the suspension of the petitioner was not without foundation, as the preliminary inquiry report contained serious allegations of misconduct and abuse of power.
Issues: 1. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner had commenced at the time of the suspension order. 2. Whether the State Government was competent to pass an order of suspension before a statement of charges was drawn up and a judicial officer was appointed to inquire into the matter. 3. Whether the order of suspension was mala fide. 4. Whether the suspension of the petitioner was without foundation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proceedings against the petitioner commenced when the State Government considered the report of the preliminary inquiry and made up its mind to take action for the removal of the petitioner under section 63(2) of the Act. 2. The State Government was competent to pass an order of suspension at this stage in exercise of its supervisory authority, and there was no requirement for a pre-decisional hearing before passing the order of suspension. 3. The allegations of mala fides were vague and unsubstantiated. 4. The suspension of the petitioner was not without foundation, as the preliminary inquiry report contained serious allegations of misconduct and abuse of power.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Proceedings against a delinquent Member/Chairman of a Municipal Board under section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 commence when the State Government considers the report of the preliminary inquiry and makes up its mind to take action for removal under section 63(2). (!) [17000189650006][17000189650007] (!) (!) (!) [17000189650014]
The State Government is competent to pass an order of suspension at the stage after considering the preliminary inquiry report and deciding to initiate action under section 63(2), in exercise of its supervisory authority under section 63(4). [judgement_subject] (!) [17000189650004][17000189650006][17000189650007][17000189650008] (!) (!) [17000189650009][17000189650010] (!) (!)
No pre-decisional hearing is required before passing the suspension order, as it is an interim measure pending inquiry, and principles of natural justice do not apply at this stage. [judgement_subject] (!) [17000189650003][17000189650006][17000189650008][17000189650009] (!) (!) (!) (!)
Suspension order is not punitive but a temporary measure to prevent misuse of office or harm to the municipality during pendency of inquiry. (!) [17000189650006][17000189650009] (!) (!) [17000189650014]
Preliminary inquiry under proviso to section 63(1) verifies substance of allegations and serves as safeguard against arbitrary suspension; State Government must apply mind to its report before deciding on further action. [17000189650004][17000189650006] (!) [17000189650007][17000189650008][17000189650013] (!)
Stages under section 63(2): (i) decision to initiate action post-preliminary inquiry; (ii) drawing up statement of charges after explanation; (iii) referral to judicial officer for inquiry. Suspension permissible at first stage. [17000189650007] (!) (!) (!) [17000189650008]
Allegations of mala fides must be specific, substantiated, and proven; vague political rivalry claims insufficient without evidence. [17000189650012]
Suspension not without foundation if based on serious allegations of misconduct and abuse of power prima facie found true in preliminary inquiry report, reflecting subjective satisfaction of State Government. [judgement_subject] (!) [17000189650013]
Post-suspension, opportunity of hearing provided before framing charges under section 63(2), allowing potential dropping of proceedings. [17000189650008][17000189650009][17000189650011] (!) (!)
Expeditious inquiry essential for elected representatives to avoid prolonged suspension; undue delay may warrant judicial intervention. [17000189650014]
Writ petition challenging suspension dismissed as proceedings validly commenced and order proper. [judgement_subject][Final Decision][17000189650014] (!)

JUDGMENT

1. - In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the controversy relates to the suspension of the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Kekri. It is now well settled that an order of suspension by way of an interim measure pending an enquiry into the charge is not by way of penalty, but, it is equally important that an office of Chairman of a Municipality is an elective office and action of suspension against such person should not be lightly taken without some foundation. The courts should be zealous to see that an elected Member/Chairman is not lightly and arbitrarily suspended or removed from his office. But, still a temporary suspension of a delinquent elected member may be considered necessary or desirable under particular circumstance of a case to save the Municiplity and its funds from ruin. The State Government under its supervisory power, has been invested with the power to suspend a Member or Chairman of a Municipality under sub-sec. (4) of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municiplities Act, 1959 (hereinafter, to be referred to 'as the Act'). While exercising this power, the State Government is not expected to act mala fide in passing the order of suspension.

2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before me, the relevant and necessary facts are briefly stated:

In August, 1990, the elections of the Members of Municipal Board, Kekri were held and the petitioner-was elected from Ward No. 7 and was subsequently elected as Chairman of the said Municipality. One Brij Kishore Sharma, Member of the Municipal Board, made a complaint on 1st May, 1991, to the Minister for Local Self-Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur, wherein, allegations were made against the petitioner for having committed various illegalities and irregularities in the discharge of his duties as Chairman. A copy of the complaint was also sent to the local MLA Shri Shambhu Dayal Badgujar, who in turn, referred the same to the Minister for Local Self Government. On these complaints, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Assistant-Director (Vigilance). From the reply of the State Government, it appears that the Inquiry Officer sought an explanation from the petitioner by sending to him a copy of the complaint. The petitioner submitted his explanation, a copy of which has been placed on the record as Ann.R/2. After completion of the preliminary enquiry, its result was forwarded to the State Government. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner to have committed serious irregularities by misusing his position as Chairman and was guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties. He, therefore, suggested the action of removal of the petitioner under section 63 of the Act. The enquiry report was then processed by the Director, Local Bodies. The Minister for Local Self Government also considered the result of the inquiry, and a decision was taken to take action for his removal by initiating an enquiry under section 63 of the Act. While taking the above decision, the order of suspension with immediate effact was also passed. Consequently, the order of suspension was issued on 30.7.91 (Ann. 2), which reads as under :

jktLFkku ljdkj Lok;r 'kklu foHkkx] jktLFkku] t;iqj dzekad ,Q fotk@Mh,yth@91@

fnukad

vkns'k pwafd Jh Hkaojyky NkcM+k] v/;{k uxjikfydk dsdM+h ds fo:) jktLFkku uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1959 vf/kfu;e la[;k 38 lu~ 1959 dh /kkjk 63 esa tkap dk;Zokgh izkjEHk gks pqdh gSA vkSj pwafd Jh Hkaojyky NkcM+k] v/;{k ds fo:) izFken`"V;k vkjksi lgh ik;s x;s gSaA vkSj pwafd mDr Jh Hkaojyky NkcM+k ds uxjikfydk] v/;{k in ij jgus ls vc tkap esa izfrsdwy izHkko iMsxkA vr% Jh Hkaojyky NkcM+k v/;{k dh tkap fopkj/khu jgus vkSj mldk vafre vkns'k ikfjr gksus rd jktLFkku uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1959 vf/kfu;e la[;k 38 lu~ 1959 dh /kkjk 63 dh mi/kkjk 4 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj ,en~ }kjk Jh Hkaojyky NkcM+k] v/;{k uxjikfydk dsdM+h dks uxjikfydk v/;{k in ls rRdkyhu izHkko ls fuyfEcr djrh gSA

jkT;iky dh vkKk ls

th0 ds0 xksLokeh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1992 Supreme(Raj) 931

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHN.L.Tibrewal, J.Bhanwar Lal Chhabra - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan & Ors. - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4304 of 1991.Decided On : 3-11-1992

Cases Referred (4)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.L.Tibrewal, J.
Bhanwar Lal Chhabra - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4304 of 1991.
Decided On : 3-11-1992