Honble MISRA, J.–This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949, has been preferred by the appellant-Suresh Chandra Singhal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.C.W.P. No. 3920/2004 (Suresh Chandra Singhal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) dated 27.09.2004 which was heard and dismissed alongwith a batch of several other writ petitions involving common questions of law. As a consequence of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant who had been suspended from functioning as the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Gangapur City, was allowed to remain under suspension till the conclusion of the enquiry, which was ordered to be conducted expeditiously by the Judicial officer to whom the enquiry has been entrusted. The appellant having specified period to function as member and Chairman of the Board, is suffering each day on account of pendency of the enquiry which is yet to be concluded and hence has preferred this appeal on several grounds including the ground of delay in concluding the enquiry.

(2). The facts of the case in so far as it is relevant to decide the controversy involved herein is that the appellant-petitioner who had first of all been elected as a member of the Municipal Board Gangapur City, on 20.8.2000 was further elected as a Chairman of the said Municipal Board on 22.8.2000.

(3). After completion of his tenure as Chairman of the Board for approximately more than three years, a notice was issued to him on 16.2.2004 by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Jaipur incorporating five charges against the appellant on the basis of an alleged enquiry report of the Regional Deputy Director for which explanation was sought from the appellant within a period of seven days failing which a proceeding was to be initiated under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipal Act 1959 (shortly referred to herein as the Act of 1959).

(4). The first charge levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that he had failed to take action to remove the encroachment with regard to a plot sold in auction on 29.8.2003. The second charge alleged that no further action was taken to remove encroachment on land of shop No. 30 and adjoining land in front of shop No. 19, 31, 32 which were let out by the Municipal Board to Jagdish Prasad Garg in 1978. The third charge was that instead of cancelling the contract for not depositing the contract amount by the contractor for Bus Parking for the year 2001-02, he allowed the contractor to pay the money by installments. The fourth charge was that he did not cancel the contract of the private buses for the year 2002-03 when the highest bidder Raju did not deposit the amount. The fifth and the last charge disclosed that the appellant did not call the monthly meeting of the Municipal Board. The petitioner on 1.3.04 demanded the copies of the documents, enquiry report and the complaint and submitted the reply, but thereafter the order of suspension was passed against the appellant on 9.6.2004.

(5). The appellant/petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order of suspension filed a writ petition being SBCWP No. 3920/2004 challenging the order of suspension on several grounds including the reason that the charges were frivolous and baseless and did not warrant an enquiry. It was also challenged on the ground that the order of suspension had been passed by the respondents without following the provisions of the Act of 1959 as the order of suspension was passed without serving the charge-sheet and statement of allegations on the appellant/petitioner nor any notice had been served upon him calling for an explanation. It was challenged further on the ground that Section 63 of the Act of 1959 empowers only the State Government to hold an enquiry and no other authority had the power to hold the enquiry and as the State Government had not passed any order for holding the enquiry, the enquiry held by the Dy. Director at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document