- (1.) HON'ble VYAS, J. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 3. 10. 2008 and prayed that the order of suspension may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be restored to her position as if she was never placed under suspension and she may be relegated to the position, which was obtaining prior to passing of the impugned order and the entire proceedings conducted so far may be quashed and the Government may be restrained from holding inquiry on the premise of inquiry report of the Deputy Director (Regional), Ajmer.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Ward Member from Ward No. 11 in the month of August 2005 in the Parbatsar Municipal Board. Thereafter, elected members of the Municipal Board elected the petitioner as Chairman unanimously. Since then she was continuing until passing of the impugned order of suspension. In the writ petition, it is pointed out by the petitioner that she is belonging to the Indian National Congress and the State Government is ruled by another political party Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), therefore, the State Government is always having an evil eye over the members belonging to the Indian National Congress. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that whenever the ruling Government got the opportunity to uproot the elected person of the Indian National Congress, they have been uprooted and, for illustration, it is stated by the petitioner that in Nagaur district, there are 4 Municipal Boards viz. , (i) Deedwana, (ii) Merta, (iii) Nagaur and (iv) Parbatsar. In para 5 of the writ petition, it is specifically contended that so far as Merta Municipal Board is concerned, one Smt. Vimla Devi who was elected Chairman was placed under suspension against which she preferred writ petition before this Court and her writ petition was allowed by this Court while setting aside the suspension order. The said Smt. Vimla Devi belongs to the Indian National Congress and she was uprooted in a systematic manner at the cost of law, democracy and public feelings. It is contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that she being elected Chairman of the Municipal Board was discharging her duties faithfully, religiously and was following the laws as prescribed in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act; but, the Government placed her under suspension vide the impugned order dated 03. 10. 2008. The said suspension order was passed on the basis of some preliminary inquiry which was got conducted through the Deputy Director(Regional), Ajmer in which the so called allegations were found to be proved and the petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation within 15 days and, for that purpose, a communication was sent to the petitioner dated 03. 09. 2008 which was received by her on 08. 09. 2008. The petitioner has placed the said communication on record marked Annex.-2. As per the petitioner, the said notice was on the face of it illegal and not passed on any evidence. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation vide her reply dated 12. 09. 2008 and the same was dispatched to the Government through speed-post. As per information of the petitioner, the said reply was served upon the Government on 18. 09. 2008. It is further submitted by the petitioner that in the communication dated 03. 09. 2008 she was called upon to file her reply within 7 days. Since the notice was received by her on 08. 09. 2008, therefore, within the stipulated time, reply was filed by her. But, without considering the said reply and observing in the suspension order that till today no reply has been filed, the impugned order has been passed. Thus, on this count alone, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. As per the petitioner, no inquiry was conducted nor she was apprised of any of the evidence against her. So also, none of the allegations levelled against her can be treated to be proved against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not involved in any type of illegal act which is unbecoming of a Chairman nor there are any allegations against her by which it can be said that she has committed any misconduct which tantamount committing any wrong as an elected person. The petitioner has submitted that in the communication dated 03. 09. 2008, four allegations were levelled against her but the petitioner has stated in the letter of explanation that she has nothing to do with those allegations. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are following : ***********
(3.) WITH regard to charge No. 1, it is submitted by the petitioner that allegation No. 1 pertains to construction of road in Ward No. 11 and, for that purpose, notice inviting tender was published and tenders were invited vide publication dated 09. 04. 2007. As per the terms and conditions of the tender, the work was to be completed within a period of one month. Hence, after receipt of the tenders, a comparative statement was prepared on 15. 05. 2007 and one Shri Yogesh Chandra was found to be the lowest bidder and he was informed that his tender was accepted and, therefore, he was directed to commence the work and complete the same within the stipulated time. He was conveyed the acceptance vide letter dated 05. 06. 2007; but, unfortunately, Yogesh Chandra failed to commence and complete the construction work within the stipulated time, therefore, in the circumstance, the order was cancelled by the Executive Officer vide letter dated 18/19-07-2007 and, simultaneously, the second lowest bidder was called upon to undertake the work and, for the same, communication was sent on 18. 07. 2007. He was called upon to give his consent by 23. 07. 2007. But, in the meantime, all the bidders including the second lowest bidder withdrew their security money. Accordingly, fresh tenders were invited vide notice dated 14. 08. 2007. The aforesaid proceedings was placed before the General House of the Municipal Board in its meeting dated 18. 07. 2007 wherein the House approved the act of inviting fresh tenders. Therefore, after approval when fresh tenders were received the Municipal Board proceeded in accordance with law and prepared comparative table of the bidders, in which, lowest bid was made by M/s Praveen Construction Company whose rate was 32% above. Thereafter, the lowest tenderer was further called upon for negotiation and finally on account of persuasion of the authorities of the Municipal Board, the lowest tenderer was persuaded to reduce its rates and it agreed to reduce the rate to the tune of 23. 71% above and, thereafter, necessary technical sanction was granted and order was placed with M/s Praveen Construction Company vide communication dated 24. 10. 2007. As per the contention of the petitioner there is no act, action, omission and commission on the part of the petitioner with regard to construction of CC road in Ward No. 11. Therefore, it is absolutely wrong to charge the petitioner or take any action against her who is elected Chairman of the Municipal Board nor it can be said that there was any act which was performed by her resulting in any losses to the Municipal Board, Parbatsar. According to the petitioner orders were passed strictly in accordance with law and there is no breach of any provision of law with regard to inviting tenders. It is also contended by the petitioner that the Chairman has nothing to do with the proceedings and all the proceedings are required to be convened by the Executive Officer. In this case, the fresh tenders were invited after due approval by the Board in its meeting dated 18. 08. 2007, therefore, the first charge levelled against the petitioner is totally baseless and the petitioner has nothing to do with the allegation. As per the petitioner, charge No. 2 pertains to undertaking work on both the sides of nalas from Balaji Puliya to the house of Chandji. The petitioner submits that she is least involved in that matter inasmuch as after proper survey, the estimate was prepared by the concerned Junior Engineer and, thereafter, the same was processed by the office and it was presented through the Executive Officer to the Chairman. Thereupon, necessary sanction was accorded to invite tenders on 20. 05. 2008. Accordingly, NIT was issued on 23. 05. 2008 and 30. 05. 2008 was fixed as last date for receipt of the tenders. After due for formalities, three constructors submitted their tenders viz. , SK Construction Company, Praveen Construction Company and M/s Radhavallabh Malakr. Upon preparing the comparative table, the rate of M/s Praveen Construction Company was found to be lowest as it was 7. 98% above. The tender was referred to the Assistant Engineer concerned and the concerned technical person approved the same and, accordingly, the lowest bidder was informed. The petitioner has placed on record certified copy of the note-sheet dated 20. 05. 2008 onwards. It is, therefore, contended by the petitioner that it is clear that on the last date of submission of tender the G-Schedule was ready, therefore, the allegation levelled against her is totally wrong that in the G-Schedule there is only signature of the Junior Engineer whereas it bears signature of the Executive Officer and approved by the concerned technical authority. ;