The enquiry under Sub-section (4A) of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 begins with the issuing of a show cause notice along with a charge sheet and ends when a final order is passed by the State Government under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961.

1. - Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is two fold : in the first place, be urges that the order of suspension of the petitioner passed on August 23, 1976 is bad in law, in as much as an enquiry as contemplated under Sub-section (4A) of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has not started as yet and therefore the State Government has no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner from his office of Sarpanch; in the second place, learned Counsel argues that allegations of malafide have been made in para 12 of the writ petition against Shri B.L. Sharma, Collector, Pali and it is urged that the charge sheet and the show cause notice served upon the petitioner as well as the order of suspension of the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch should be quashed on the aforesaid grounds. In support of his first contention, learned Counsel relies upon a decision of this Court in Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan, 1965 R.L.W. 98 . Mr. Mathur, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submits that the decision of the learned Single Judge in Pukhraj's case 1965 R.L.W. 98 has been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Pukhraj, 1970 R.L.W. 125 . He also submits that the arounds which have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition can be taken by him in the enquiry under Section 17 of the Act and as the said enquiry is still proceeding against the petitioner, it would not be proper for this court at this stage to consider the questions reined in this writ petition. Mr. Mathur states at the Bar that the Sub Divisional Officer, Pali, has been appointed by the State Government as the Enquiry Officer under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') to make an enquiry into the charges which have been drawn up and served upon the petitioner. I have considered the rival contentions.

2. As regards the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears that a show cause notice under Rule 21(2) of the Rules, was issued to the petitioner on August 21, 1976 calling upon him to show cause to wiring why an enquiry in respect of the charges be not made. A charge sheet containing 11 charges, drawn up under Sub- rule (1) of Rule 21, was also sent to the petitioner along with the aforesaid show cause notice. It may be recalled here that a preliminary enquiry under Rule 20 was earlier held against the petitioner by the Additional District Development Officer, Pali, who submitted his report on April 24, 1976 and he fund that the petitioner was guilty of grievous misconduct. The aforesaid report was then pent by the Collector, Pali, along with his recommendations to the State Government under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 20 of the Rules, Thereupon, the State Government considered the report of the preliminary enquiry and then drew up the charge sheet which was sent to the petitioner along with the show cause notice dated August 21, 1976 (Anx 6). The grievance of the petitioner is that although he was enquired to submit a reply to the aforesaid charge sheet on or before September 9, 1976, yet without waiting for the reply of the petitioner the State Government proceeded to pass an order on August 23, 1976 under Sub-section 4(A) of Section 17 of the Act suspending the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the 'enquiry' contemplated under Sub-section (4A) of Section 17 would only begin when the State Government appoints an enquiry officer after considering the representation of the petitioner in reply to the charge sheet and the show cause notice and that the State Government has no jurisdiction to pass an order of suspension at any stage earlier thereto.

3. Although a learned Single Judge of this Court had in Pukhraj's case 1965 R.L.W. 98 taken the view which h