JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - Both these writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law and are thus being decided together by this single order.

2. The petitioner Shakuntala is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Beharwala Kalan, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi whereas, the petitioner Mamta is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Salemgarh masani, Panchayat Samiti, Tibbi. Both were elected as in the election year 2015. The petitioner Shakuntala was placed under suspension by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner vide order dated 15.2.2018 and the petitioner Mamta was placed under suspension by the same authority vide order dated 10.1.2018 respectively. Both these orders were passed on the ground that the competent Court had framed charges against the petitioners in the criminal cases instituted with the allegations of having contested the elections on the basis of fake educational testimonials.

3. The impugned orders are challenged principally on the ground that the Divisional Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to place an elected Sarpanch under suspension by resorting to the State Government's notification dated 28.9.1999 as modified by notification dated 23.2.2008.

4. It is contended by Shri Bhaleria learned counsel representing the petitioners that the notification dated 28.9.1999, only empowers the Divisional Commissioners, in cases where preliminary inquiry has resulted into finding of guilt against the elected representative of the Panchayati Raj Institution, to recommend suspension/removal of such elected representative to the State Government and to act further only upon receiving approval of the State Government. He urged that no independent power is vested in the Divisional Commissioner to directly place such representative under suspension without approval of the State Government. The notifications only confer recommendatory jurisdiction upon the Divisional Commissioner and thus, the impugned orders whereby the petitioners were placed under suspension by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, are bad in the eye of law. He further urged that the election petition filed against Smt.Shakuntala with the very allegations which form the foundation of the suspension order stands rejected by the Election Tribunal whereas, the order framing charge against the petitioner Mamta has been challenged in revision and thus, as per Shri Bhaleria, there exists no plausible reason or ground so as to justify the orders of suspension issued against the petitioners. He relies upon Laxman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2008(1) WLN 214 (Raj.) in support of his contentions and craves acceptance of the writ petitions.

5. Per contra, Shri Kuldeep Singh Advocate appearing for Shri Manish Patel, AGC for the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Department and Shri Rakesh Matoria Advocate representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. They relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mool Chand vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2004(5) WLC (Raj.) 172 and a Single Bench decision rendered in the case of Rajesh Devi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017(3) WLC (Raj.) 332 and urged that the Hon'ble Division has already affirmed the validity of the notification conferring powers of suspension on the Divisional Commissioners and that no different view is permissible. They further urged that minor ambiguity in the language of the notification would not be sufficient to infer restriction on the powers of the Divisional Commissioner. They urged that the notification has been engrafted so as to give emergent powers to the Divisional Commissioners to take appropriate action against the members of the Panchayati Raj Institution found indulged in grave misconduct and if the cumbersome procedure of seeking approval from the State Government in every case is insisted upon, the very purpose of delegation of powers upon the Divisional Co