Ranawat, C.J.—This is an application by Mohanlal under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of Government order dated the 24th of October, 1962 by which the petitioner was suspended from his office of Chairmanship of the Sardarshahar Municipal Board.

2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Briefly they be put thus. The petitioner Mohanlal was elected member of the Sardarshahar Municipality at general election held in May, 1961 and he was subsequently elected as Chairman of the said Municipality. Certain complaints against the petitioner were received by the Government and a preliminary enquiry was held by the Dy. Director of Local Bodies in the month of March, 1962 and by the Assistant Director of Local Bodies in the month of October, 1962 after the post of the Deputy Director had been abolished. An interim report was submitted by the Assistant Director of Local Bodies to the Government on the 22nd of October, 1962. The statement of the petitioner was recorded regarding certain allegations against him by the Assistant Director on the 20th of October, 1962 before he submitted his report to the Government. The Government ordered suspension of the petitioner on the 24th of October, 1962 and a formal order in this behalf was communicated to the petitioner on the 1st of November, 1962. The petitioner has filed this [writ petition on the 6th of November challenging the validity of the order of his suspension on the ground that no enquiry had commenced against him under sec. 65(10) read with sec. 63(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The petitioner also alleged that he did not receive any information about any inquiry against him till he received the order of his suspension. In the reply that has been filed by the Government, it is stated that a preliminary report was submitted by the Assistant Director of Local Bodies to the Government on the 22nd of October, 1962 and the Government was pleased to order the petitioners suspension on the 24th of October, 1962 and also for holding an inquiry against him. A copy of the record of the proceedings in this behalf has been placed on the record and it appears at page 39 of the paper-book. It is further stated that the Assistant Director of Local Bodies submitted his final report to the Government on the 28th of November, 1962 and on that report show cause notice was ordered to issue against the petitioner. In short, the reply is that an inquiry was ordered against the petitioner simultaneously with the order of his suspension.

3. Mr. Rastogi for the petitioner has contended that for the removal of a chairman of a municipal board, proceedings under sec. 65(10) contemplate that the Government should act on the grounds mentioned in sec. 65(l)(d) by adopting the procedure laid down under sec. 63(2) and before the Government makes up its mind to remove a chairman, it is not open to the Government to order his suspension and in the instant case, it is stated, the Government has not so far made up its mind whether or not to remove the petitioner from his office of chairmanship. Reference in this behalf has been invited to the reply filed by the Government in which it is mentioned that action regarding appointment of a judicial officer shall be taken on receipt of the reply of the petitioner and on the Government deciding whether or not to take action against him for his removal. In support of this contention, Mr. Rastogi has vehemently urged that proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 63 of the Act is not applicable to the inquiries under sec. 65(10) for removal of a chairman of a municipal board. He has also urged that in the meaning of sub-sec. 4 to sec. 63 inquiry against a chairman of a municipal board is commenced on issue of a show cause notice to him after proceedings are taken under sub-sec. 2 by appointment of a judicial officer for conducting inquiry. He has thus argued that the order of suspension of the petitioner is premature and is, therefore, not in accordanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document