The court established that suspension of a municipal member can occur without prior notice if proceedings have commenced, interpreting the relevant sections of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

ORDER

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 whereby he has been placed under suspension under Section 39(6) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009') from the office of Member, Ward No.38, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer (for short 'the Corporation').

2. The facts, in brief, of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Member from Ward No.38 of the Municipal Corporation, Ajmer on 31.01.2021. He has been placed under suspension vide order dated 22.08.2023 by the respondents with the charge that he filed a Civil Suit and power/vakalatnama against the Corporation before the Court of Civil Judge, North, Ajmer, against the mandate contained under Section 24(xvi) of the Act of 2009.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not filed any suit against the Corporation, he simply signed the power on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of an associate junior counsel. The suit was filed by the Counsel Mr.Abhishek Bhargava and only said Mr.Bhargava has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. The petitioner has not contested and argued in any suit against the interest of the Corporation. Hence, the petitioner has not acted in a disgraceful manner against the interest of the Corporation.

4. Counsel submitted that after receipt of complaint against the petitioner, his explanation was called and looking to the averments and explanation of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the higher authorities and on 14.08.2023, the Department of Local Bodies recorded the note-sheet and indicated therein as follows:-

"The conduct of Shri Devendra Shekhawat is unbecoming of elected Parshad, he has acted against the interest of Nagar Nigam.

In view of this, he may be issued a show cause notice before proceeding further."

5. Counsel submitted that without issuing any show cause notice of definite charges, the petitioner has been placed under suspension in violation of the provisions contained under Section 39 of the Act of 2009.

6. Mr.Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jan Mohd. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1992(2) WLC (Raj.) 463, it was incumbent that only on the basis of the complaint made about working of a person, which may be covered by sub-section (l)(a) of the Section 39 of the Act, 2009, no suspension can take place. The complaint has to be inquired by the State Government and after the enquiry is held and a preliminary report is submitted and after that report is considered, the delinquent can be suspended. Counsel on the strength of the said judgment, submitted that suspension can only take place after due application of mind on the preliminary report where the authority comes to the conclusion that the matter requires further probe and the explanation has to be obtained from the delinquent concerned and after setting down the statement of allegation, the enquiry is required to be referred to a Judicial Officer.

7. Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Jagdish Narayan Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1994(2) WLC (Raj.) 615 and on the strength of the said judgment submitted that if the preliminary enquiry is not conducted and report of the Enquiry Officer is not placed before the State Government, then it cannot be said that "proceedings have been commenced" within the meaning of Section 39(6) of the Act, 2009 and as such, the impugned suspension order is vitiated.

8. Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(i) Ugamsee Modi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1962 RLW 184.

(ii) Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1963 RLW 209.

(iii) Bhura Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1988(1) RLR 945.

(iv) Geeta Devi Narooka Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2008(2) WLC 261.

(v) Pradeep Hinger Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2008(1) RLW Raj. 456.

9. Counsel submits that ove