[2023:RJ-JP:34705]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14381/2023

Devender Singh Shekhawat son of Late Shri Doongar Singh Ji,

aged about 46 rears, resident of New Colony, Adarsh Nagar,

Ajmer.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Local Self

Government, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

Director and Special Secretary, Director Local Bodies, G-

3, Rajmahal Residency Area, Civil Lines Phatak, C-

Scheme, Jaipur.

3.

Dy. Director (Regional), Director Local Bodies, Ajmer.

4.

Municipal Corporation, Ajmer through its Commissioner,

Prithviraj Marg, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr.Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr.Ashish Sharma,

Advocate.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr.Anil Mehta, Additional Advocate

General assisted by Mr.Yashodhar

Pandey & Mr.Anurag Sharma,

Advocates.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

RESERVED ON

:

08/11/2023

PRONOUNCED ON

:

21/11/2023

Order

REPORTABLE

1.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the

impugned order dated 22.08.2023 whereby he has been placed

under suspension under Section 39(6) of the Rajasthan

Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short ‘the Act of 2009’) from the

[2023:RJ-JP:34705]

(2 of 17)

[CW-14381/2023]

office of Member, Ward No.38, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer (for

short ‘the Corporation’).

2.

The facts, in brief, of the case are that the petitioner was

elected as Member from Ward No.38 of the Municipal Corporation,

Ajmer on 31.01.2021. He has been placed under suspension vide

order dated 22.08.2023 by the respondents with the charge that

he filed a Civil Suit and power/vakalatnama against the

Corporation before the Court of Civil Judge, North, Ajmer, against

the mandate contained under Section 24(xvi) of the Act of 2009.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has not filed any suit against the Corporation, he simply

signed the power on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of an

associate junior counsel. The suit was filed by the Counsel

Mr.Abhishek Bhargava and only said Mr.Bhargava has appeared on

behalf of the plaintiff. The petitioner has not contested and argued

in any suit against the interest of the Corporation. Hence, the

petitioner has not acted in a disgraceful manner against the

interest of the Corporation.

4.

Counsel submitted that after receipt of complaint against the

petitioner, his explanation was called and looking to the averments

and explanation of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the

higher authorities and on 14.08.2023, the Department of Local

Bodies recorded the note-sheet and indicated therein as follows:-

“The conduct of Shri Devendra Shekhawat is unbecoming of

elected Parshad, he has acted against the interest of Nagar

Nigam.

In view of this, he may be issued a show cause notice before

proceeding further.”

[2023:RJ-JP:34705]

(3 of 17)

[CW-14381/2023]

5.

Counsel submitted that without issuing any show cause

notice of definite charges, the petitioner has been placed under

suspension in violation of the provisions contained under Section

39 of the Act of 2009.

6.

Mr.Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel submitted that

as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jan Mohd.

Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1992(2) WLC

(Raj.) 463, it was incumbent that only on the basis of the

complaint made about working of a person, which may be covered

by sub-section (1)(a) of the Section 39 of the Act, 2009, no

suspension can take place. The complaint has to be inquired by

the State Government and after the enquiry is held and a

preliminary report is submitted and after that report is considered,

the delinquent can be suspended. Counsel on the strength of the

said judgment, submitted that suspension can only take place

after due application of mind on the preliminary rep