BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THIS is a special appeal under sec. 18 of the High Court Ordinance and arises in the following circumstances: On 4th October, 1960 Shri Pukhraj was elected as Sarpanch of Badgaon Panchayat, but he had to relinquish his office on account of no confidence motion passed against him on 10th October, 1963. On 23rd January, 1964 he was again elected as Sarpanch of the said Panchayat. On 24th May, 1964 he received a notice from the Assistant Secretary (Enquiry) Government of Rajasthan asking him to show cause why enquiry should not be made in respect of the charges contained in the statement annexed to the notice. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. On 10th June, 1964 the petitioner received an order from the Assistant Secretary (Enquiry) by which the petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch under sec. 17 (4-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (hereinafter called the Act.)
(2.) SHRI Pukhraj filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the aforesaid order of suspension on various grounds. This writ petition was heard by Jagat Narayan J. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Judge and he set aside the aforesaid order of suspension. It is against this judgment of the learned Single Judge that the State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal. Notice of the appeal was sent to Shri Pukhraj respondent but inspite of the service of the notice he is not present. In order to appreciate the point involved in this appeal, it is necessary to refer to sec. 17 (4) and 17 (4-A) of the Act and also to rules 20 and 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat General Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Rules): - "sec. 17 (4) The State Government may, by order in writing and after giving him an opportunity of being heard and making such inquiry as may be deemed necessary, remove any Panch or Sarpanch who - (a) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting as such, or (b) in the opinion of the State Government has been guilty of misconduct or neglect in the discharge of his duties or of any disgraceful conduct; Provided that any such inquiry as is referred to in this sub-section may be initiated even after the expiry of the term of a Panchayat or if already initiated before such expiry, may be continued thereafter and in any case the State Government shall, by order in writing only record its findings on the charges levelled against a Panch, Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch of the Panchayat during its term of office. (4-A) The State Government may, during the course of any inquiry under sub-sec. (4) suspend a Panch, Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom the inquiry has been started and debar him from taking part in any act or proceedings of the Panchayat while under such suspension. " Rule 20. Preliminary inquiry for removal.- " (l) The Collector may, on his own motion or upon the requisition of the State Government initiate a preliminary inquiry under sub-sec. (4) of sec. 17 against any Panch, Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of a Panchayat or against any member or Chairman of a Nyaya Panchayat. (2) For the purpose of sub-rule (1) any officer subordinate to him may be deputed by the Collector to hold such preliminary inquiry and to make a report to him. (3) Any such preliminary inquiry against the Chairman or a member of a Nyaya Panchayat may also be initiated as aforesaid by the Munsif, or, where there is no Munsif by the Civil Judge, or the Magistrate of the first class, having jurisdiction over the Nyaya Circle. (4) If, as a result of such preliminary inquiry, the Collector or the Munsif or the Civil Judge or the Magistrate of the first class initiating the inquiry is satisfied that any charges of the nature specified in sub-sec. (4) of sec. 17 are prima facie made out against such Panch, Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch or against such Chairman or Member, as the case may be, a report thereof along with the the recommendations of such officer the matter shall be made accordingly to the State Government or to any officer or authority to whom the powers of the State Government under sub-sec. (4) of sec. 17 may be delegated by a notification under sec. 70. (5) The provisions of the Rajasthan Disciplinary Proceedings (Summoning of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act. 1959 (Rajasthan Act No. 28/1959) and the rules made thereunder, shall also apply mutatis mutandis, to the enquiries against Panch, Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch of the Panchayat or against any member or Chairman of a Nyaya Panchayat as the case may be being conducted under the provisions of the Act, and the rules made thereunder. 21. Final inquiry - (1) The State Government or the officer or authority referred to in sub-rule (4) of rule 20 shall consider the report of the preliminary inquiry and may either drop the proceedings or get drawn up a statement of charges prima facie made out against the person against whom the preliminary inquiry has been made, specifying such details as may be deemed sufficient for him to understand the nature thereof. (2) A copy of such statement shall be sent to the person charged, along with a notice calling upon him and to show cause in writing why they should not be inquired into. (3) Upon reading the representation, if any, of the person charged, in response to the notice under sub-rule (2) the State Government or the officer or authority referred to in sub rule (4) of rule 20 may either drop the proceedings or may appoint an officer or authority to inquire into the charges, hereinafter referred to as the inquiring officer, to whom the record of the preliminary inquiry, the statement of charges, the explanation of the person charged and all other relevant papers shall be forwarded. (4) The inquiring officer shall - (a) issue a notice to the person charged to appear before him on a date and at the time and place specified in the notice. (b) read out to the person charged, when he so appears, the charge or charges levelled against him. (c) hear his explanation, if any, (d) take and consider such evidence, oral or documentary, as may be produced in support or in rebuttal of the charge or charges, and (e) record his finding on each of them. (5) The record of the inquiry, together with his findings shall be forwarded by the inquiring officer to the State Government or the officer or authority referred to in sub-rule (4) of rule 20. " Under sec. 17 ( 4-A ) of the Act the State Government can remove any Panch or Sarpanch if the conditions laid down in clauses (a) and (b) are satisfied, but such removal cannot be ordered without taking the following steps : (1) The order must be passed in writing. (2) It must be made after giving him an opportunity of being heard; and (3) An enquiry as may be deemed necessary should be made before passing such an order. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the enquiry referred to in sec. 17 (4-A) is the final inquiry which is ordered by the State Government under rule 21 (3 ). In his view, the office of Sarpanch being an elective office, the legislature could not be taken to have laid down that a panch, upsarpanch or Sarpanch is liable to suspension pending a preliminary inquiry like an ordinary civil servant. Learned Additional Advocate General has urged that sub-sec. (4-A) of sec. 17 authorises the State Government to suspend a Panch, Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch after an inquiry has been initiated against him and the legislature has not imposed any bar on the State Government to suspend him only when certain stage in the inquiry has reached. His contention further is that it is in the rules that the method of holding the inquiry has been laid down and that an inquiry must be deemed to have started as soon as proceedings are taken under rule 20. Even if we do not accept this argument of the learned Addl. Advocate Gen. and take the view that a preliminary inquiry u/s. 20 is only for the satisfaction of the State Govt. for taking any action against the Panch, Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch, in the present case, that stage had already reached and a stage had come when steps for holding final inquiry as contemplated under r. 21 were taken by the State Government. Under R. 21 the State Govt. is to consider the report of the preliminary inquiry and decide either to drop the proceedings or to draw a statement of charges prima facie made out against the Panch, Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch specifying such details as may be deemed sufficient for him to understand the nature of the charges. In this case, the State Government did not drop the proceedings but decided to draw up a statement of charges against the Sarpanch and send such statement of charges to him along with a notice calling upon him to show cause why they should not be enquired into and it is after such notice has been issued that he has been suspended. In this case he had even submitted his explanation before he was suspended. We find no reason to take the view that even after a notice calling upon him to show cause why the charges, the statement of which has been furnished to him, should not be enquired into, the inquiry should not be deemed to have started. Rule 21 (3) of course provides for the dropping of the proceedings if the State Government, upon reading the representation, takes such a view. The words "dropping of the proceedings" show that the proceedings for inquiry in the sense in which it is understood by the learned Judge had started even before. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is that it is only after an inquiring officer has been appointed and the Government had ordered that such inquiring officer should take up the inquiry that the proceedings should be deemed to be initiated. This, in our view, is too narrow an interpretation of the word 'inquiry' occurring in secs. 17 (4) and (4-A ). Sec. 17 (4) no doubt says that it is the State Government which is to hold an inquiry but it is not correct to say that such inquiry is not initiated even after the State Government has sent a show cause notice to the person charged giving details of the charges against him. It is of course true that the office of a Panch or Sarpanch is an elective office and action against such a man for suspension should not be taken without some foundation. But in this case material had come before the State Government on the basis of which certain charges were prima facie made out and it was on the basis of that material that the State Government considered it necessary to issue a notice to the respondent to show cause in writing why charges should not be inquired into. At that stage at least it must be taken that the inquiry as contemplated under sec. 17 (4-A) had started. Sec. 17 has been framed for the purpose of exercising control over the Panchas and Sarpanchs. Even in other countries exercise of such control is not unknown. Reference in this connection may be made to the following observation in "the Structure of Local Governments Throughout the World by Samuel Humes and Eileen M. Martin" which we find at page 47 of the book: - "the authority of the higher units to remove officials is often even more extensive than its power to appoint, for in many European as well as Asiatic and South American countries the higher units can decommission elected as well as appointed officials. In most of these countries the right to dismiss elected officials from office is limited to situations where there is gross incompetence, proved persistent disobedience of orders, corruption, or a failure to perform their functions due to a political stalemate". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Central Governments usually do not find it politically expedient to dismiss elected officials more than is felt to be absolutely necessary. In most cases, the dismissed elected officials are depleted by new elections. In a relatively few more serious cases central Government appointees are assigned to manage the local affairs for an interim period. " While we are zealous to see that a Panch or Sarpanch should not be lightly suspended or removed, we cannot as a matter of law interpret sub-sec. (4-A) of sec. 17 of the Act in the manner that the State Government has no power to suspend a Sarpanch even after it is satisfied after holding a preliminary inquiry that a prima facie case against him has been made out. This will be restricting the supervisory power of the State Government in a manner not warranted by the language of the Statute. It must not be forgotten that the institution of Pancha-yats in Rajasthan requires careful, though paternal supervision. The suspension of a Sarpanch under particular circumstances of a case may be considered necessary or desirable to save the Panchayat and its funds from ruin. In such circumstances the power of the State Government to suspend a Panch, Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch must not be looked with an eye of suspicion. The State Government is not expected to act mala fide in passing the order of suspension otherwise its action will be struck down on that ground. A preliminary report by Collector is a safeguard against whimsical, capricious or mala fide exercise of the power of suspension by the state Government. After such preliminary report has been submitted and there is a prima facie case made out against the delinquent elected officer the state Government should be left free to exercise its control and if the circumstances do warrant a temporary removal of such an incumbent then to suspend him after a careful scrutiny of the preliminary report submitted before it. In this view of the matter, we are of opinion that the writ petition filed by Shri Pukhraj should have been dismissed. We would therefore allow the appeal and order dismissal of the writ petition. No order as to costs. . ;