Instant special appeal has been preferred against order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.2.2016.

2. The substantial question raised in the batch of writ petitions was whether the Chairperson/Members of the Panchayati Raj Institutions can be removed, proceeded against in an enquiry u/sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 23 of the Panchati Raj Rules, 1996 and/or suspended u/sec. 38(4) of the Act 1994 in respect of pre-election disqualifications. Keeping in view the Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Sameera Bano v. State of Rajasthan 2007 (2) RLW 1674, the batch of writ petitions came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge and observed ad infra :-

"The petitions are accordingly allowed. The enquiry under Section 39 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 23 of the Rules of 1996 and suspension of elected members for allegations of pre-election disqualification under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994 except where charges have been framed for offences of moral turpitude are quashed.

It is however clarified that the State Government however would be free, if warranted in specific cases, to conduct only a fact finding enquiry for taking other proceedings in accordance with law including that of lodging a FIR. It is also made clear that for post election misconduct, the State Government will be entitled to take proceedings for removal of the delinquents and suspend the Chairpersons/Members of the Panchayati Raj Institutions by resort to Sections 39 and 38(4) of the Act of 1994. Finally in the event of elected Chairpersons/Members being charged for an offence involving moral turpitude even in respect of the period prior to the elections, the State Government would be free to suspend such Chairpersons/Members Panchayati Raj Institutions under Section 38(4) of the Act of 1994."

3. As regards the present appellant is concerned, the substantial question on which the learned Single Judge deliberated the issue and disposed of 39 writ petitions vide order dated 11.2.2016, referred to in the present order impugned dated 17.2.2016 as well, but at the same time it was further observed that there is a criminal case registered against the present appellant u/sec. 171G, 177, 181, 182, 467, 420, 468 and 471 IPC whereupon the Court of Additional Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate No.25, Chomu District Jaipur has taken cognizance and thereafter the matter has not proceeded any further, and taking note thereof the learned Single Judge in its order impugned further observed that let the learned Trial Court may proceed in the matter and pass appropriate orders, obviously after hearing the petitioner as regards the framing of charge and if the charge is finally framed, the trial be expedited and completed within 12 months.

4. The main thrust of submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that what has been mandated by the learned Single Judge in its order impugned dated 17.2.2016 has been considered to be a direction to frame the charges and to conclude the trial of the criminal case within the time bound frame work as observed by the learned Single Judge within a period of 12 months from the date of presentation of the order.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the matter was fixed before the learned Trial Court on 24.2.2016 and taking note of order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.2.2016, on 26.2.2016 the charges have been framed and the matter has now been posted for trial and is being expedited to be concluded within the time bound directions of the learned Single Judge under the order impugned and this, according to him, is nothing but denial of the principles of natural justice, since the faster speed adopted by the learned Trial Court has caused a great injustice to him, however, the learned counsel further submits that at-least a reasonable opportunity of defence has to be provided to him to put his case what the faster speed may be but this could not const