The proceedings for removal of a Member/Chairman of a Municipal Board/Council under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (the Act) can only be commenced after the State Government has applied its mind to the report under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act, and after consideration of the explanation, if any, of the Member/Chairman concerned.

Headnote:
MUNICIPALITIES ACT - SECTION 63(4) - SUSPENSION OF CHAIRMAN - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - INQUIRY UNDER PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 63 - OPPORTUNITY OF EXPLANATION - COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Chairman of the Municipal Board, Bari, challenged the order of suspension passed against him under Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (the Act), and the vires of Section 63(4) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

1. The proceedings for removal of a Member/Chairman of a Municipal Board/Council under Section 63 of the Act can only be commenced after the State Government has applied its mind to the report under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act, and after consideration of the explanation, if any, of the Member/Chairman concerned. 2. The existence of a report under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act and consideration of the explanation, if any, of the Member/Chairman concerned, is a condition precedent for the commencement of the proceedings within the meaning of Section 63(4) of the Act. 3. The State Government has not delegated its powers under clauses (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act to any of its subordinate officers, including the Director, LB. 4. An inquiry under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act in the matter of removal of a Member/Chairman of the Municipal Board as contained in Clause (d)(i) of Section 63(1) of the Act could only be made by the State Government itself or it could have directed any of its subordinate officers to make such inquiry into the matter. 5. The order of suspension under Section 63(4) of the Act cannot be sustained as the case is in contravention of the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the proceedings for removal of a Member/Chairman of a Municipal Board/Council under Section 63 of the Act can be commenced without an inquiry under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act and an opportunity of explanation to the Member/Chairman concerned? 2. Whether the State Government has delegated its powers under clauses (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act to any of its subordinate officers, including the Director, LB? 3. Whether an inquiry under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act in the matter of removal of a Member/Chairman of the Municipal Board as contained in Clause (d)(i) of Section 63(1) of the Act could only be made by the State Government itself or it could have directed any of its subordinate officers to make such inquiry into the matter? 4. Whether the order of suspension under Section 63(4) of the Act can be sustained if it is in contravention of the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act are subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 63 of the Act. Therefore, so far as a Member/Chairman of the Municipal Board, who is sought to be removed on the ground that he has been guilty in the discharge of his misconduct is concerned, he can only be removed after complying with the provisions of Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 63 of the Act. 2. It is only after considering of the report of inquiry referred to in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act and after hearing the explanation of the member concerned, that it can be proposed under Sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the Act that a Member/Chairman should be removed from his office on the ground contained in Clause (d)(i) of Section 63 (1) of the Act. 3. The State Government has not delegated its powers under clauses (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act to any of its subordinate officers, including the Director, LB. 4. An inquiry under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Act in the matter of removal of a Member/Chairman of the Municipal Board as contained in Clause (d)(i) of Section 63(1) of the Act could only be made by the State Government itself or it could have directed any of its subordinate officers to make such inquiry into the matter.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order of suspension passed against the petitioner was quashed.

JUDGMENT

1. - The petitioner Ajmer Singh Yadav, Chairman of the Municipal Board Bari, District Dholpur, has played for a writ of certiorari or a direction for quashing the order dated September 12, 1985 (Annexure 1) of the State Government placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has also challenged the vires of Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act').

2. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Board, Bari from ward No. 13 on February 14, 1982 and thereafter was unanimously elected as Chairman of the aforesaid Municipal Board. According to the petitioner in the month of March, 1984 the Government of Rajasthan had asked for the petitioner's explanation in respect of some items. However, when the petitioner met the then Minister for State for Local Self Department, Shri Praduman Singh on January 11, 1985, the Minister was satisfied with the petitioner's explanation and therefore no further proceedings were taken in the matter. It is the case of the petitioner that he had a meeting with the Collector, Dholpur in connection with some Municipal work about two months ago and there were some hot discussions between him and the Collector Dholpur. It appears that the Collector Dholpur did not take it very kindly and appears to have made some complaint against the petitioner to the Director of Local Bodies (hereinafter called as the Director, LB)-cum-Dy. Secretary to the Government, Local Self Department Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioner received an order dated September 12, 1985 whereby the Government of Rajasthan, purporting to act under Section 63(4) of the Act, has placed the petitioner under suspension from the office of the Chairman/Member of the Board.

3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order placing him under suspension on the ground that no proceedings for his removal from the office of the Chairman/Member of the Board have been commenced against him and therefore, the suspension is illegal. The vires of Section 63(4) of the Act have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same does not provide any guidelines and clothes the State Government with unfettered powers. Therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is invalid. The case of the petitioner further is that no procedure is laid down under section ('3(4) of the Act for suspension of the office and there is no fair and reasonable procedure for suspending a member/Chairman of the Municipal Board and therefore it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan reply has been filed. According to the State complaints of misconduct, abuse of office, were received against the petitioner from Shri Rajkumar Bharadwaj, Vice Chairman of the same Board on January 21, 1983. Upon the said complaint an enquiry was got conducted by the Collector through Shri Ahsan Ahmed Chhipa, Asstt. Collector Headquarters Dholpur. The inquiry report dated November 8, 1983 was forwarded by the Collector to the Director, LB on November 21, 1983 and after considering the same the State Government issued a notice along with the statement of charges to the petitioner on March 2, 1984. In response to the aforesaid notice which was accompanied by the statement of charges the petitioner appeared, but did not submit any reply till May 24, 1983. The Director, LB then requested the State Government to place the petitioner under suspension. Before taking any action personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner and he was given notice, but every time the petitioner sought adjournments and no reply to the show cause notice was submitted till May 2, 1985. That file is still pending and has not been dropped. It is further the case of the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan that complaints against the petitioner for his gross-misconduct in the discharge of his duties and abuse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1985 Supreme(Raj) 817

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTM.B.Sharma, J.Ajmer Singh Yadav - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan and Ors. - RespondentS.B.C.W.P.No. 1657 of 1985.Decided On : 29-11-1985

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.B.Sharma, J.
Ajmer Singh Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B.C.W.P.No. 1657 of 1985.
Decided On : 29-11-1985