MISRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a Zila Pramukh of District Sawaimadhopur who has challenged the order of suspension passed against him by the respondent-State on 15. 01. 2003 as contained in Annexure-9.
(2.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bharat Vyas that the order of suspension dated 15. 01. 2003 is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 38 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act of 1994") since this provision envisages that the State Government may in writing and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned Zila Pramukh and making such enquiry as can remove or suspend only if the enquiry had already been initiated against the chairperson or a deputy chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution. According to the petitioner's advocate the order of suspension was passed on 15. 01. 2003 although no enquiry for the allegations/charges levelled against the petitioner was in existence. Learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench Judgment Ram Lal Choudhary vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1), in order to reinforce his submission that if an enquiry was not existing on the date when the order of suspension was passed, the same was not fit to remain effective. The respondent's advocate on the other hand clarified the position and submitted that a preliminary enquiry on the allegation of demanding of illegal gratification by the petitioner as per rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules of 1996") had already been conducted against the petitioner and after perusal of the report of the preliminary enquiry, which went against him, the order of suspension was passed against the petitioner as it was the demand of the situation. This part of the submission was again refuted by Mr. Bharat Vyas, who submitted that the preliminary enquiry report cannot be construed as a report or initiation of enquiry as contemplated under Section 38 of the Act of 1994. In order to test this submission of the learned counsel Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 was perused. It is sufficiently clear that Rule 22 lays down the procedure of enquiry wherein it has been stated as follows :- " 22 (1 ). Procedure of enquiry. (1) Before taking any action under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 38 where on its own motion or upon any complaint the State Government may ask the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer to get a preliminary enquiry done and to send his report to the State Government within one month. " This rule clearly envisages that preliminary enquiry has to be conducted under sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Act and once this enquiry is conducted and a report is in existence on the date when the order of suspension was passed which has been followed by final enquiry which is still pending and due to be completed, the submission of the petitioner's advocate that the order of suspension was illegal or unjustified although the enquiry within the meaning of Section 38 had been initiated is absolutely devoid of substance. Even without rule 22 it could have been construed that the preliminary enquiry was a part of the final enquiry and could have been constructed as an enquiry within the meaning of Section 38 of the Act, but fortunately there is no reason to speculate or draw inferences since Rule 22 of the Rules of 1996 itself clearly states that the preliminary enquiry under rule 22 is an inquiry under sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Act and that being the clear position, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a grievance that the preliminary enquiry report which had gone against the petitioner was not good enough for suspending him. The writ petition therefore, has no merit and hence it stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. .;