Honble YADAV, J.–Heard.

(2). Perused the materials available on record. In these three writ petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved and as such these petitions can be disposed off by a common judgment without narrating the facts in detail averred in each of the writ petition.

(3). As a matter of fact, in these writ petitions, pure question of interpretation of sub Sec. (2) and (3) of Sec. 63 of Rajasthan Municipal Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as Act No. 38 of 1959) and the rules framed thereunder relating to procedure in holding inquiry into the charges against members/councillors or office bearers of a Municipal Board is involved.

(4). As regards the case of Nathulal Jangid, it is posted today for admission but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I propose to decide the aforesaid writ petition today on merit at admission stage along with other two petitions which are posted for final hearing.

(5). In these three writ petitions, distinct charges were framed in exercise of power under sub section (2) of Sec. 63 of Act No. 38 of 1959 by State Government and after framing distinct charges, Judicial Inquiry Officers of the rank of District Judges were appointed to make enquiries and remit their findings on each charge embodies in the statement as well as on every other matter they consider relevant to the charge.

(6). The rules framed by State Government in exercise of its power under sub section (3) of Sec. 63 of Rajasthan Municipal Act, 1959 lay down procedure for holding inquiry into the charges against a member/councillor or office bearer of a Board which is published in Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV (c) dated 26.11.1959. In Rule 2 of the aforesaid rules it is provided that if the member/councillor admit the charge in his written statement and shows no sufficient cause why he should not be removed from the post, Judicial Inquiry Officer shall record his findings on each matter embodie in the statement of the charge after hearing him if he makes appearance and send to the record to State Government for passing necessary orders. The aforesaid procedure is also inferable from the language with which sub Sec. (3) of Sec. 63 of Act No. 38 of 1959 is couched with.

(7). Although in these three cases, distinct articles of charges were framed by the State Government but in support of those charges no evidence was disclosed either oral or documentary which was intended to be adduced in proof of those distinct articles of charges before the Judicial Enquiry Officers of the rank of District Judges appointed by State Government. In all these petitions except in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 2965/2000, the Judicial Inquiry Officers had shirked their responsibilities to record findings on each articles of charge as envisaged under sub Sec. (3) of Sec. 63 of Act No. 38 of 1959 and Rules framed thereunder for the reason best known to judicial Inquiry Officers causing serious prejudice to the petitioners. It is true that Judicial Inquiry Officer in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 2965/2000 has recorded findings on each charge but he failed to make reference about the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The Judicial Inquiry Officer ignored the explanation submitted by petitioner while recording finding of guilt against him causing serious prejudice to him.

(8). I record my appreciation for State Legislature for meticulously making just, reasonable and fair procedure under Sub. Sec. (2) and (3) of Sec. 63 of Act No. 38 of 1959 for holding inquiry into the charge against member/councillor or office bearer of the Board relating to their removal, suspension and debarring them from contesting re-election for a period of five years from the date of order of their removal or recording of adverse findings as the case may. I further record my appreciation for State Government for framing just, reasonable and fair procedure for removal, suspension and debarring a member of Board from re-election for a period of five yea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document