Honble MADAN, J.–By way of this writ petition, Smt. Chhagan Kanwar Rathore (petitioner) has sought direction for quashing : (1) show cause notice dt. 17.3.99 (Ann. 1) and (2) order dt. 21.7.99 (Ann. 4), by which she has been suspended from the post of Chairman and Member of Municipality, Sarwar by the State Govt. in exercise of power u/S. 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short, ``the Act).

(2). Factual matrix necessary to decide the controversy raised at the bar is thus. Undoubtedly, the petitioner in an election held in the year 1975 was elected as Member of the Municipal Board, Sarwar (for brevity the Board) and whereupon she had been also elected as Chairperson in August 1995 and since then she has been Chairperson of the Board. The petitioner states that she belongs to the Bhartia Janta Party; that in 14th Assembly Elections in the Rajasthan State, Congress (I) Party members formed new government and since she being member of Bhartia Janta Party (BJP) opposed in the 14th assembly election against Congress (I) party candidate Shri Babulal Singaria (respondent No.3) who has been elected as Member of Legislative Assembly from Kekri constituency which covers area of the Board of Sarwar, at whose behest, the complaints by the members of the Congress (I) party came to be lodged against her to the State Govt. for the works having been got performed by the Board in the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. Upon such complaints, the State Govt. issued a show cause notice dt. 17.3.99 (Ann. 1) to the petitioner alleging therein seven instances as to the financial irregularities having been allegedly committed in excess of powers and jurisdiction as Chairperson of the Board, as also against the orders of the State Govt., which resulted into heavy financial loss to the public exchequer. By show cause notice (Ann.1) received by her on 22.3.99, her explanation was sought within 15 days otherwise after expiry of prescribed period to further proceed against her under Sec. 63 of the Act.

(3). It is the petitioners case that she had posted her explanation (Ann.2A) to the show cause notice (Ann.1) under registered post (Ann.2) on 3.4.99 raising therein legal objections as well as denial to the allegations made in the notice (Ann.1). She had also filed a writ petition No. 2027/99 challenging the show cause notice (Ann.1) apprehending order of suspension, but this Court vide its order dt. 17.5.99 (Ann. 3) dismissed her writ petition by arriving at the conclusion that both the prayers of the petitioner have no legal force as this Court cannot enter into the merit of the charges for which a show cause notice has been issued to her, so as to act as an enquiry officer.

(4). However, an order suspending the petitioner from the posts of Chairperson and Member of the Board was passed on 21.7.99 by the respondent No.2 under the orders of the State Govt. in exercise of powers u/S. 63(4) of the Act. Hence, this writ petition challenging show cause notice (Ann.1) and suspension order (Ann.4).

(5). While drawing attention to the suspension order (Ann.4), Shri G.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly, reply (Ann. 2A) to show cause notice (Ann.1) sent by post by the petitioner having been allegedly not received within time, was not taken into consideration before or at the time of issuing suspension order (Ann. 4) by the State Government and, therefore, according to Shri Garg, non-consideration of her reply (Ann. 2A) to show cause notice (Ann.1) has resulted in vitiating not only principles of natural justice but also vitiated the suspension being in violation of the provisions of the suspension under Sections 63(2) & 63 (4) of the Act on the part of the respondents State functionaries, and on this ground alone, the impugned suspension order (Ann. 4), as per Shri Garg, deserves to be set aside.

(6). Next plunk of attack as to the validity of the suspension is that since the State Govt. failed to draw up a statement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document