JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by one Ugam See Modi. It has been contested on behalf of the State. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Government Advocate I am satisfied that it should be allowed.
(2.) UGAM See Modi was elected as Chairman of Jalore Municipal Board on 29. 2. 61 and was working in this capacity when a complaint was made against him to the Minister for Local Self Government by two persons Suraj See Modi and Nihal Chand Bhandari. On 29. 2. 64 the Government appointed the District Judge of Balotra to hold an inquiry into the complaint. Annexure P5 is a copy of the complaint dated 6. 9. 63 and annexure B. 3 dated 29. 2. 64 is the order of the Government. On 4. 7. 64 the District Judge issued a notice to the petitioner (annexure P4) enclosing a copy of the complaint. The petitioner then filed a reply to the allegations made against him (annexure P. 6 ). During the pendency of the inquiry before the District Judge Suraj See Modi and Nihal Chand Bhandari levelled 169 fresh allegations against the petitioner before the District Judge and the latter proceeded to enquire into those allegations as well. The relevant part of sec. 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 runs as follows: "s. 63. Removal of Members - (1) The State Government may, subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2) and (3), remove a member of a board on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) that he has absented himself from the meetings of the board on more than three consecutive months or three consecutive ordinary general meetings, whichever is the longer period, without leave of the board. Provided that the period during which such member was in jail as an under trial prisoner or as a detenu or as a political prisoner shall not be taken into account, (b) that he has failed to comply with the provisions of sec. 61, (c) that after his election he has incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in sec. 18 or sec. 26 or has ceased to fulfil the requirements of sec. 24; (d) that he has - (i) been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or (ii) been guilty of any disgraceful conduct, or (iii) become incapable of performing his duties as a member, or (iv) otherwise flagrantly abused in any manner his position as such member: Provided that an order of removal shall be passed by the State Government after such inquiry as it considers necessary to make either itself or through such officer or authority as it may direct and after the member concerned has been afforded an opportunity of explanation. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1) where it is proposed to remove a member on any of the grounds specified in cl. (c) or cl. (d) of sub-sec. (1), as a result of the inquiry referred to in the proviso to that subsection and after hearing the explanation of the member concerned, the State Government shall draw up a statement setting out distinctly the charge against the member and shall send the same for inquiry and findings by judicial officer of the rank of a District Judge to be appointed by the State Government for the purpose. (3) The judicial officer so appointed shall proceed to inquire into the charge in the prescribed manner, hear the member concerned if he makes appearance, record his findings on each matter embodied in the statement as well as on every other matter he considers relevant to the charge and send the record along with such findings to the State Government, which shall thereupon pass orders in conformity with those findings. It is clear from section 63 that Government can only refer Specific charges for inquiry to the District Judge as provided under sub-sec. (2) and the District judge can only enquire into the charges so referred to him. He cannot hold an inquiry into any charge which may be levelled against a chairman during the course of the inquiry under sub-sec. (2 ). Further in view of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) it is incumbent on the Government to offer an opportunity of explanation to the chairman before it can frame charges against him and refer them for inquiry to the District Judge under sub-sec. (2 ). No opportunity of explanation was offered to the petitioner by the Government before referring the complaint for inquiry to the District Judge. I accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the order of the Govern-ment dated 29. 2. 64 asking the District Judge to hold an inquiry into the complaint dated 6. 9. 63 made by Shri Suraj See Modi and Shri Nihal Chand Bhandari. If the Government still wish to hold an inquiry against the petitioner they should first give him an opportunity of explanation as provided in the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 68. Charges may be framed against him only after considering his explanation. Further only specific charges can be referred to for inquiry to the District Judge after the Government is prima facie satisfied that a case for inquiry is made out. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition. . ;