SHETHNA, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 15. 5. 98 (Annex. P/3) and order dated 25. 8. 1998 (Annex. P/4) ordering re-enquiry against the petitioner.
(2.) EARLIER writ petition No. 1821/98 filed by the petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this fresh petition. On 24. 11. 1998 my learned brother Hon'ble R. R. Yadav, J. while issuing notice stayed the impugned order of suspension and order of re-enquiry. Though the respondents were duly served, no reply has been filed in the matter so far. By virtue of interim order passed by this Court on 24. 11. 1998, the petitioner was reinstated in the office of Sarpanch and his term has also over. Thus, the order of suspension looses all its significance. The only question remains regarding re-enquiry on the basis of Section 63 (3) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `the Act' ). It was submitted by the learned counsel Shri Joshi for the petitioner that on the receipt of the report of enquiry officer the State Govt. was bound to pass orders in conformity with the findings recorded by the judicial officer. He, therefore, submitted that second enquiry in the matter was not permissible on any ground. He submitted that in any case, it was not open to the State Govt. to order re-enquiry in the matter on the ground that no reasons were assigned by the judicial officer in his enquiry report without supplying the copy of the said enquiry report to the petitioner. However, learned Addl. Advocate General Shri Vyas for the respondents vehemently submitted that the State Govt. had to act on the finding recorded by the judicial officer in his enquiry report, but if the judicial officer fails to record any finding in his enquiry report then the State Govt. is competent to order re-enquiry. There is lot of substance in the submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General that without recording any reason or finding if the judicial officer in his enquiry report exonerate the person then it is not possible for the State Govt. to act mechanically on such report. Under the circumstances, the State Govt. would be competent to order re-enquiry but that has to be done only after serving a copy of the said enquiry report submitted by the judicial officer in favour of the petitioner and giving an opportunity to show cause as to why re-enquiry should not be ordered.
(3.) IN view of the above, learned Addl. Advocate General Shri Vyas submitted that petitioner will be served with the show cause notice alongwith the report of judicial officer before ordering re-enquiry in the matter. In view of the above, the impugned order at Annex. P/3 dated 15. 5. 1998 and Annex. P/4 dated 25. 8. 1998 are hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to the respondent State Govt. to proceed against the petitioner by way of re-enquiry only after extending an opportunity of hearing and supplying the copy of the enquiry report submitted by the judicial officer in earlier enquiry. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. . ;