Honble NAOLEKAR, J. – The petitioner is the elected Ward Member of Municipal Board, Rajsamand from Ward No. 21. Later on, he contested the election of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand and was declared elected. At the relevant time, the petitioner was the Chairman of the Municipal Board. On 22.10.96 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for explanation u/s 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `the Act hereinafter). On 5.11.96 a reply was filed by the petitioner. A charge sheet was issued that while holding thepost of Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand, the petitioner at his whims has effected renovation of the chamber without inviting tenders or even issuing the work order. He has not fixed the rates for executing the work and, therefore, he has committed financial irregularity using his position. Charge No. 2 is to the effect that on 25.6.97, tenders were invited for carrying out the work of paver at six places.The tenders were opened on 2.7.97 and the permission to carry out the work to M/s. Kaviraj Construction was issued whereas the work at six places was completed even prior to issuing of tenders. This way the tenders were invited only to fill up the lacuna and the work was carried out without inviting tenders using the position and thereby caused financial loss to the Municipal Board. It is contrary to the Nagar Pali-ka (Samanya Karya & Anubandh) Rules, 1974 (for short `the Rules hereinafter). After the issuance of the charge sheet, an order of suspension was issued suspending the petitioner from the Chairmanship of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand and the matter was handed over for judicial enquiry as contemplated u/s 63(2) of the Act. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that before the enquiry as con-templated under the proviso to sub- section (1) of s. 63 is completed, no proceedings under sub- section (4) of s. 63 could have been taken against the petitioner.

(2). Under the facts of the case, I need not go into this submission made by the counsel for the petitioner as the petitioners suspension order was issued only after the issuance of the charge sheet. However, it would be fruitful to refer to thedecision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Jan Mohd. vs. The State of Raj. (1), whereby the Division Bench approved the decision of another Division Bench rendered in Mohanlal vs. State of Raj. (2), and observed as under :–

``The Division Bench after considering Ugamsee Modis (supra) and the provisions of Ss. 63(2), (3), (4) and (5) came to the conclusion that though for purposes of Sub-section (1) of S. 63, a preliminary inquiry would be held to have commenced no sooner cognizance is taken of a complaint by the Govt. against such Officer, yet proceedings should be taken to commence in the meaning of the term under Sub-Section (4) to S. 63 only when process is ordered to issue against such person or when the authority makes up its mind to take action. At this stage, the Govt. makes up its mind whether or not to take action and that, in our opinion, is the stage of commencement of proceedings for purposes of Section 63(4).

(3). The conjoint reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of S. 63 indicates thatthe proceedings would be taken to be commenced within the meaning of sub-section (4) of S. 63 when the authority makes up its mind to take action against the person. The affidavit filed by the Deputy Director (Regional), Local Bodies, Jodhpur alleges that on 19.7.97, charges against the petitioner were framed and thereafter the order of suspension has been issued against the petitioner. The charges framedagainst the petitioner are as mentioned above. Framing of charges by the respondent against the petitioner clearly indicates the Govt. making up its mind to take action against the petitioner. Prima facie, on reading the charges, it cannot be said that they do not fall within S. 63(1)(d) of the Act or that there is a colourable exercise of powers. As the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document