Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the inquiry report dated 30.9.1998 (Annexure P.20) and impugned order dated 7.10.98 (Annexure P.18) by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Chair-person of the Municipal Board, Asind district Bhilwara, and further she has been declared dis-qualified to contest election of the Municipal Board for the post of Chair-person/Member for a period of five years.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was elected as the Chair-person of the Municipal Board, Asind on 28.8.1995. Some irregularities were pointed out in allotment of a shop No.15 in favour of one Shri Gautam Chand Jain, vide order dated 4.7.97, by the petitioner and proceedings un- der Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as ``the Act) were initiated. Petitioner was put under suspension and judicial enquiry commenced. Allegations and counter-allegations regarding allotment of the said shop had been that it was not located in the main market, no person was willing to have it on rent. One Shri Gautam Chand Jain applied for the allotment of the said shop vide application dated 4.7.96, contained in Annexure R.19, on which the petitioner passed the order on the same day directing the Executive Officer to do the needful for allotment of the shop in his favour and petitioner passed the order on the next day to accept the rent. A preliminary enquiry was held against the petitioner. She was served with a Notice dated 2.4.98 (Annexure P.8) to show cause why the proceedings under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as ``the Act) be not initiated against her as she had hatched a conspiracy to allot the said shop to Mr. Gautam Chand Jain on the rent of Rs. 100/- p.m. while the shop was worth Rs. one lac and it could have fetched the rent upto Rs.250/- per month and the said allotment had been made in violation of the Rules.

(3). Petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. However, after considering it, the respondents passed the order of suspension dated 18.4.98 (Annexure P.9) and the judicial enquiry commenced. Petitioner was served with the Charge-sheet (Annexure P.10) on the allegations, referred to above. It was stated in that letter that alongwith the charge-sheet, the Statement of Allegations was, also, annexed but petitioner did not receive the said Statement. Subsequent events are put in chronological order as under:-

14.9.98: Petitioner filed an application before Enquiry Officer to issue a copy of the complaint, on the basis of which the charge-sheet was served; preliminary enquiry report, list of witnesses and the copy of the report that the premises in question was capable to fetch more rent.

24.9.98: Application dated 14.9.1998 was rejected by the Enquiry Officer unceremoniously.

26.9.98: Petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet (Annexure P.16) wherein she again stated that she could not file effective reply to the charge-sheet for want of documents referred to above.

26.9.98: Department examined three witnesses, viz., Satya Narain- PW.1, Bhanwar Lal PW 2 and Sabir Mohammed-PW3, to support its case.

26.9.98: Petitioner was directed to adduce evidence in her defence on 30.9.98.

30.9.98: Petitioner preferred an application for short adjournment as she was unable to attend the enquiry for the reason that she was having ``Pooja at her residence on that date. In support of her application, she also filed the printed invitation card for the occasion.

30.9.98: Enquiry Officer rejected the said application for adjournment.

30.9.98: Arguments of both side counsel were concluded.

30.9.98: Enquiry Officer submitted its report.

07.10.98: The State Government passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from the post of the Chair-person and declaring her dis-qualified for a period of five years to contest any election of the Municipal Board.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document