Govind Mathur, J.—The petitioner, an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chittar, has preferred this petition for writ to challenge the order dt. 23.01.2007 initiating an inquiry against him as per Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) and the order dt. 05.04.2007 placing him under suspension.

2. The contentions of the petitioner while challenging the orders aforesaid are that:-

(1) the petitioner is charged for the disgraceful conduct as he is said to be having possession over the government land, however, such possession over the land in question was not made by the petitioner but by his forefathers, hence he could not be held liable for any encroachment or trespass;

(2) the land which is said to be in possession of the petitioner as trespasser has already been regularised in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the misconduct alleged is having no foundation. Even if it is assumed that the land said to be in possession of the petitioner has not been regularised then too the same requires regularisation and in that regard a suit was already pending before the Assistant Collector, Jaitaran as prescribed under Sec. 88 read with Section 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”); and

(3) the order of suspension dt. 05.04.2007 was passed in mechanical exercise of powers and without ascertaining the need for placing the petitioner under suspension.

3. In reply to the writ petition the respondents have denied the fact that the order of suspension was passed without application of mind. It is asserted that the petitioner is admittedly having encroachment on government land and he has deposited fine in that regard time to time. The conduct of a person having encroachment on government land is certainly disgraceful and such person deserves to be charged for misconduct as per provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”) and the Rules framed thereunder. The respondents have also placed on record a set of photocopies relating to the proceedings resulting in suspension of the petitioner and initiation of the inquiry.

4. Heard counsel for the parties.

5. The petitioner has approached this Court with an admission that he is having possession over a government land but that does not amount any misconduct. The contention of the petitioner is that the possession over the land in dispute is from last so many decades and even that is prior to his birth. He acquired possession over the land by inheritance, thus, no misconduct as alleged was committed by him. The petitioner has also asserted that he has already filed a revenue suit for getting the land in question regularised in his favour as per the provisions of the Act of 1955, however, the petitioner has not denied the fact that for keeping possession over the land in question a fine was imposed upon him and he deposited the same. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed a revenue suit before the Assistant Collector, Jaitaran under Sec. 88 read with Section 92-A of the Act of 1955 after service of charge sheet that is subject matter in present controversy. The respondents have denied the fact that the possession over the land in question was acquired by the petitioner inheritance. It is asserted that the petitioner accepted his encroachment, therefore, his conduct is certainly disgraceful and that requires adjudication as per provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder. The issue with regard to term of possession over the land in dispute by the petitioner is highly disputed. The only admitted position is that the petitioner is having possession over the land which is a government land. The respondents have framed a definite charge on basis of possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute and the question as to whether that possession is quite old or was made by the petitioner himself or